Skip to main content

Full text of "Appendix to the Journal of the Assembly"

See other formats

/ » 


328. 79'* C12:71 



Form 3427 



3 1223 90138 4488 

Digitized by tine Internet Archive 

in 2010 witii funding from 

San Francisco Public Library 


Appendix to the J 
of the Assemb 



January 2, 1961— June 16, 1961 

DEC 13 1961 



Majorify Floor Leader 

Speaker pro Tempore 

Minorify Floor Leader 

Chief Clerk of ihe Assembly 






Livestock and Dairies, Assembly Interim Committee on 

*^Volume 18, Number 3 — Final Report 
Social Welfare, Assembly Interim Committee on 

■^ Volume 19, Number 10 — Final Report 
Ways and Means, Assembly Interim Committee on 
y Volume 21, Number 2 — Subcommittee on Welfare Costs 

V Volume 21, Number 3 — Recommendations for Television in California Higher 


/Volume 21, Number 4 — Dedicated Funds 

Criminal Procedure, Assembly Interim Committee on 

• ^Volume 22, Number 1 — Various subjects 

^'Volume 22, Number 2 — Subcommittee on Correctional Facilities 

Judiciary — Civil, Assembly Interim Committee on 

'^Volume 23, Number 1 — Prepaid Service Contracts of Health and Dance Studios 

*^ Volume 23, Number 2 — Uniform Securities Act 

'^''olume 23, Number 15 — Real Estate Contracts and Trust Deeds 

Military and Veterans Affairs, Assembly Interim Committee on 
y Volume 24, Number 1—1959-61 Activities 

Natural Resources, Planning and Public Works, Assembly Interim Committee on 
V^Volume 25, Number 1 — 1959-61 Activities 
Water, Assembly Interim Committee on 

< Volume 26, Number 1 — Economic and Financial Policies for State Water Proj- 
ects (1960) 
/Volume 26, Number 2 — The Delta Pool 

Constitutional Amendments, Assembly Interim Committee on 
\/ Volume 27, Number 1 — Final report on revision of the State Constitution 
\/Legislative Reference Services for the California Legislature 
Legislative Organization, Joint Committee on 

/Legislative Organization, Citizens Legislative Commission to the 
Joint Committee on 

Final report and recommendations 




of the 


to the 

(House Resolution No. 326-13, 1959) 



LEVERETTE D. HOUSE, Vice Chairman 




Published by ihe 




Speaker Speaker pro Tempore 


Majorify Floor Leader Minority Floor Leader 

Chief Clerk of the Assembly 




Letter of Transmittal 3 

Authoriziii|Li Resolution 4 

Summary of Findings and Recommendations 7 

Chapter One. Milk Depots and Plant Docks 13 

Definitions 13 

History of Growth 14 

fStatement of the Problem 15 

The Proposal: A.B. 2319 ]7 

The Arguments 18 

Judicial History and Current Litigations 20 

Chapter Two. Manufacturing Milk Problems 23 

Definitions 23 

History and Statement of the Problem 23 

The Proposal: S.B. 1167 28 

The Arguments 28 

Chapter Three. Other Problems 32 

Contracts, Cuarantees and Quotas 32 

Upgrading Buttermilk 33 

Country Plant Charges 35 

Transportation Charges 37 

Milk Study Committees 39 

Chapter Four. Committee Activities 42 

History of Hearings 42 

Staff Research 43 

Acknowledgments 44 

Chapter One 

Appendix 1. "Cash-and-Carry" Dairy Operations, Location 

and Number, November, 1960; map and list by county 45-6 

Appendix 2. Processing Plant Differentials and Fluid Milk 

Sales by Marketing Area; list 47 

Appendix 3. Excerpts From the Opinion of Justice Van 

Dyke, Third District Court of Appeal, in Misasi v. Jacohsen 48 
Chapter Two 

Appendix 4. Number of Cows Milked, Production per Cow, 

Total Milk Production, 1935-1959; chart 49 

Appendix 5. Sales of Fluid Milk and Personal Income in 

California, 19:M-i;)59; chart and tabular data 50-1 

Appendix 6. Manufacture of P>utter and Nonfat Dry Milk 

Solids, 1935-1959; chart and tabular data 52 

Appendix 7. Average Daily Production of Manufacturing 

Milk, 1954-1959; chart and tabular data 53 

Chapter Three 

Appendix 8. Members, Milk Study Committees 54 

Appendix 9. Summary of Proposed Principles for Milk Pur- 
chase Contracts 56 


2— L-2037 


California Legislature 
Assembly Interim Committee on Livestock and Dairies 

Sacramento, January 2, 1961 

Hon. Ralph M. Brown, Speaker of the AssemMy 
and. Memhers of the AssemMy 
Assembly Chamher, Sacramento 

Gentlemen: Enclosed is the report of the Assembly Interim Com- 
mittee on Livestock and Dairies pursuant to and in conformance with 
provisions of House Resolution 326-13 of the 1959 General Session. 

Since June 19, 1959, this committee has held ten hearings throughout 
the State on a variety of proposals to amend the Milk Control Act. We 
have gathered and examined information from industry sources as well 
as from the Department of Agriculture to supplement data submitted 
in testimony. A summary of our interim activities is included as Chap- 
ter Four of the report. The results of that activity are summarized in 
the findings and recommendations listed in preface to the body of the 

The committee expresses its gratitude to the California Legislative 
Internship Program for making available the services of Mr. Robert P. 
Judd who was subsequently retained as consultant to prepare this 

Respectfully submitted, 

Frank P. Belotti, Chairman 
Leverette D. House, Vice Chairman 
Carl A. Britschgi Carley V. Porter 

Richard H. McCollister Charles H. Wilson 

Alan G. Pattee 



Relative to constitiitino- certain standing: committees of the 
Assembly as interim committees 

Resolved hy the Assembly of the State of Calif orma, As follows: 

1. The following standing committees of the Assembly are hereby 
constituted Assemblj^ interim committees and are authorized and 
directed to ascertain, study and analyze all facts relating to (1) the 
subjects and matters assigned to them b.y this resolution; (2) any sub- 
jects or matters referred to them by the Assembly; (3) any subjects 
or matters related to (1) or (2) which the Committee on Rules shall 
assign to them upon request of the Assembly or upon its own initiative: 

(m) The Committee on Livestock and Dairies is assigned the sub- 
ject matter of livestock, ]joultry, dairies, and dairy products in the 
Agricultural Code, uncodified laws relating thereto, and other matters 
relating to livestock aiul dairies. 

2. Each of the above committees shall consist of the members of the 
Assembly Standing Committee on the same subject for the 1959 Regular 
Session. The chairman and vice chairman shall be the chairman and 
vice chairman of the standing committee. Vacancies occurring in the 
membership of the committee shall be filled by the appointing power. 

3. Each committee is authorized to act during this session of the 
Legislature, including any recess, and after final adjournment until the 
commencement of the 1961 Regular Session, with authority to file its 
final report not later than the fifth calendar day of that session. All 
reports shall be printed out of the funds allocated to said committee 
and shall be in the form prescribed by the Rules of the Assembly and 
the Committee on Rules. 

4. Each committee and its members shall have and exercise all the 
rights, duties and powers conferred upon investigating committees 
and their members by the provisions of the Joint Rules of the Senate 
and Assembly and of the Standing Rules of the Assembly as tliey are 
adopted and amended from time to time at tliis session, wliich pro- 
visions are incorporated lierein and made applicable to this committee 
and its members. 

5. Each committee has the following additional powers and duties: 

(a) To contract with such other agencies, public or private, as it 
deems necessary for the rendition and affording of such services, facili- 
ties, studies and reports to the committee as will best assist it to carry 
out the purposes for Avhich it is created. 

(b) To cooperate with and secure the cooperation of county, city, 
city and county, and other local law enforcenuMit agencies in investi- 



gating any matter within the scope of this resolution and to direct the 
sheriff of any county to serve subpoenas, orders and other process issued 
by the committee. 

(c) To report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature 
and to the people from time to time and at any time, not later than 
herein provided. 

(d) To do any and all other things necessary or convenient to en- 
able it fully and adequately to exercise its powers, perform its duties, 
and accomplish the objects and purposes of this resolution. 

6. No subcommittee chairman shall be appointed by the chairman 
of any interim committee or otherwise except upon prior written con- 
sent of the Committee on Rules or the Speaker. 

7. No consultants, staff members, or other employees may be em- 
ployed by any interim committee except upon prior written approval 
of the Committee on Rules. 

8. No contracts for goods or services or otherwise may be negotiated 
or entered into by any interim committee without the prior written 
approval of the Committee on Rules. 

9. No committee or any member or employee thereof may travel 
outside the State on committee business without the prior written con- 
sent of the Committee on Rules or the Speaker in each case. 

10. Within 30 days after the adoption of this resolution, each interim 
committee shall file with the Rules Committee a proposed work sched- 
ule program report setting forth the specific matters it is contemplated 
the committee shall study and report upon, which program may be 
supplemented from time to time, and which report shall also contain 
the personnel or staff needed for said committee and the estimated ex- 
penses of said committee for the period June 19, 1959 to March 19, 1960. 

11. In order to prevent duplication and overlapping of interim 
studies between the various interim committees herein created, no com- 
mittee shall commence the study of any subject or matter not specifi- 
cally authorized herein or assigned to it unless and until prior written 
approval thereof has been obtained from the Committee on Rules or 
the Speaker. 

12. Each interim committee shall file with the Assembl}^ a brief gen- 
eral preliminary or progress report of its activities on or before the 
twentieth calendar day of the 1960 Budget Session of the Legislature. 

13. Each interim committee shall file its final report with the Assem- 
bly on or before the fifth calendar day of the 1961 Regular Session of 
the Legislature. 

14. The sum of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) or 
so much thereof as may be necessary is hereby made available from the 
Contingent Fund of the Assembly for the expenses of the above com- 
mittees and their members and for any charges, expenses or claims 
they may incur under this resolution. The Committee on Rules shall 
allocate from the above sum to each committee created by this resolu- 

3— L.-2037 


tion such amount as the Committee on Rules from time to time deems 
appropriate and sufficient to carry out the duties assigrned to each such 
committee. After allocations have been made by the Committee on 
Rules to a committee pursuant to this resolution, the Committee on 
Rules shall not thereafter reduce or revert any funds or portions thereof 
so allocated. The original amount so allocated shall be for expenses for 
the period June 20, 1959, to March 20, 1960. Funds not to exceed the 
amount so allocated shall be paid from the said Contingent Fund and 
disbursed, after certification by the Chairman of the respective com- 
mittees, upon warrants drawn by the State Controller upon the State 



1. Traditionally, consumers have paid less for finished products when 
available at the farm or at the processing plant. The difference between 
the farm or plant price and the retail or delivered price traditionally 
and essentially represents a difference in costs for service performed. 
Definitions in" the Milk Control Act (Sees. 4216-4218, Ag. Code) and 
price-fixing criteria (Sees. 4350-4363, Ag. Code) thereof seem to require 
distinctions in price representative of distinctions in cost. 

2. Price differentials for ranch plants, milk depots and plant docks 
exist in 18 of the 28 milk marketing areas and range from 1 to 2^ cents 
a quart. Volume sales from depots and docks have almost doubled in the 
past two years and substantial volume shifts, from grocery or home 
delivery routes to the new outlets, have occurred in the two marketing 
areas with the greater differential. 

3. The rapid and widespread development of such outlets, from three 
in 1940 to 360 in 1960, concerns the entire California dairy industry. 
The question is : Does the Milk Control Act permit the Director of Agri- 
culture to recognize different methods of distribution which reflect 
differences in costs of operation? The problem is complicated by (1) 
market competition, (2) distribution methods, (3) contractual disloca- 
tions and (4) administration of the law. 

4. The most crucial issue of administering the law^ lies in the defini- 
tion and application of the term "natural growth" by the Bureau of 
Milk Stabilization to milk depots and plant docks so as to preserve 
stability in milk marketing. A wide differential, predicated upon costs 
alone, seems to result in a faster growth than does a narrower differen- 
tial of 1 cent a quart. Modifications in Bureau practices, relying more 
on stability than costs as determined by auditing surveys, have followed 
judicial decisions in several marketing areas and a case testing the 
Bureau's authority to recognize different methods of distribution based 
on differences in costs is presently under submission to the California 
Supreme Court. 

5. The Supreme Court's decision in the i\[isasi case may establish 
with finality w^iether the Bureau has the authority under the present 
law to apply price-fixing criteria and legal definitions of stability to 
marketing areas where depots and docks operate to preserve, as the 
Legislature intended, an adequate supply of milk and dairy products at 
reasonable prices to consumers and reasonable profits to producers and 


The committee recommends that the Legislature await the Supreme 
Court's decision in the Llisasi case before considering any further pro- 
posals to amend the provisions of the Milk Control Act in regard to 



ranch plants, milk depots and plant docks. Upon the Court's action, the 
Lefrislature may wish to consider certain proposals to substantiate, with 
an additional declaration of legislative intent, the Bureau's discretion- 
ary use of the state's police power in milk marketing. If so, the com- 
mittee would recommend that such proposals be jjiven additional inten- 
sive and objective consideration. 


1. ^Manufacturing: milk, unregulated by the Milk Control Act, 
amounted to 55 percent of total milk production in the state in 1937 
and amounted to 18 per cent of total milk production in California in 
195f). The number of manufacturing milk producers has steadilj' de- 
clined because of (1) conversion of many such producers to market 
milk production, (2) conversion to other farm enterprises, or (3) con- 
version to nonagricultural pursuits. Estimates of production cost range 
from 55 cents to $1 above prevailing subsidized prices for manufactur- 
ing milk. 

2. Declining per capita consumption and greater production effi- 
ciencies have caused an increase of mai'ket milk supplies. Such excess 
milk competes directly with manufacturing milk in the production of 
finished dairy products and byproducts. Imports of milkfat, amounting 
U) 37.6 percent of total in-state requirements and apparently caused by 
local high production costs, further impair the health of the manufac- 
turing milk segment of the California dairy industry. 

3. ]\Iercliandising ])ractices, such as brand and institutional advertis- 
ing, appear to be minimal; the total advertising and promotional costs 
to all segments of the dairy industry amounted to $6,582,292 or 43 cents 
per capita while farm earnings, without normal wholesale and retail 
markups, from dairy products amounted to $24.60 per capita in Cali- 
fornia in 1959. In comparison, the distilled spirits industry spent an 
estimated $20,677,440 or $1.35 per capita in California in 1959 and 
California cling peach producers, with much lower total earnings than 
dairymen, spent $1,582,992 or 10.3 cents per capita in fiscal 1959-60. 
Unfortunate publicity about cholesterol and wax from milk containers, 
coupled with other competitive forces, have obviously caused a decline 
in milk consumption per capita which might have been otherwise in- 
creased by vigorous merchandising. 

4. The most salient feature of the complex economic problems which 
beset California's dairy industry, and its manufacturing milk produc- 
tion segment particularly, is how best to accommodate production to 
consumption or, put another way, how to adjust supjily and demand. 
The jxiint at issue is whether a marketing law for manufacturing milk 
will foreclose California manufactured dairy products from local 

5. Disrui)tions in the production sector of California dairying might 
be overcome by any one of several alternatives including: (1) revision 
and standardization of milk i)urcliase contract.s, as presently considered 
by four industry committees in coojx'ratiou with the State Department 
of Agriculture; (2) a marketing law for manufacturing milk to guar- 


antee producers a nominal return; (3) a federal pricing order for 
manufacturing milk producers in California or various parts of the 
state; (4) production cutbacks in both market and manufacturing 
milk; or (5) the encouragement of increasingly significant efforts in 
merchandising by all dairy industry segments. 


The committee recommends that each of these and any other alterna- 
tives be thorouglily and objectively studied by the appropriate public 
and private agencies and that such agencies subsequently take vigorous 
action on which ever seem most desirable. It appears that only through 
a united and cooperative effort can California's milk industry maintain 
the degree of stability and growth necessary to ensure the state's rap- 
idly- expanding population its future dairy supply. 


1. Contractual arrangements are crucial to the orderly production 
and marketing of milk. Contract guarantees conform to usage patterns 
according to diverse consumer demands as classified by definitive sec- 
tions of the Milk Control Act. Such guarantees ensure payment for 
classified usage and, to some extent, ma}'' affect production efficiency 
and amounts. 

2. Principles for milk purchase contracts are now being intensively 
studied by four industry committees, composed of 48 representatives of 
all segments of the dairy industry, under the auspices of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. Findings and recommendations of the study com- 
mittees will be submitted to the State Board of Agriculture for con- 
sideration ; if approved, they will be submitted to the Governor and 
subsequently to the Legislature if necessary. However, substantial revi- 
sion and standardization of milk purchase contracts, especially with 
regard to language and terms, may be best accomplished through the 
efforts of dairy industry leaders with the advice of Department and 
industry experts. 


The committee recommends that the Legislature await the reports of 
the industry study committees and subsequently objectively consider 
any proposals for legislation necessary to implement their findings. 
Furthermore, the committee heartily commends the work initiated by 
the .study committees and departmental staff with the hope that their 
efforts will benefit the public w^elfare. 


1. Upgrading dairy products is a means of improving product qual- 
ity ancl thereby increasing the consumer price and the income of the 
producer. Keduced demand for fluid milk and concomitant increased 
supplies of fluid milk reserves have resulted in diversion of such milk 
into low-recovery byproducts. "Blend" prices to producers would be 


increased by requiring the use of market milk in the manufacture of 
cultured buttermilk as proposed. 

2. Such action, if necessarj-, might be taken by administrative regula- 
tion to establish differentials based on the various recovery prices for 
classifications of milk usajres. Precedents for such action exist in (1) 
bonus payments for tank shipments of Grade B milk, (2; a 20-cent per 
hundredweight differential over Class 3 prices for Grade A milk 
shipp>ed in bulk and used for Class 2 products, and (3) an 11-cent per 
hundredweight difference in bulk handling discounts on milk shipped 
through country plants. 


The committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture Milk 
Study Committees be continued indefinitely to consider principles for 
the establishment of these and (^'thpr differentials to producers for the 
various usages based on dr" - in recoverA- prices and bulk 

handling. Criteria for the ester ::t of such differentials should be 

clearly defined and approved by industrA* leaders in concert through 
unrestricted and and cooperative discussion and study. 


1. Some 22 countrj- plants in the Central Valley serve as Bi^ifinW/ 

and transshipment points for fluid milk between remote farm and dty 
market ; most have also been useful as production units for manufac- 
tured dain.- products. Until 1958, distributors operating such plants 
deducted 27 cents per hundredweight for all Grade A milk trans- 
shipped through such plants from paj-ments to producers but after 
public hearings, the Bureau of Milk Stabiliza' 'uced the deduc- 

tions for bulk shipments to 15 cents per hundr 

2. The elimination of the bulk handling yd, 
would further increase the "blend" price to j • -'St- 
ing the 26-cent per hundredweight deduction lor shipments in milk 
cans. However, it might severely impair the profits of some country 
plants and force them to close, thus jeopardizing the only available 
outlets for some other producers despite the fact that only 15 percent of 
Central Valley Grade A milk shipments need to pass through such 


The committee recommends, as stated previously, that criteria for 
the establishment of all such differentials i^ould be clearly defined and 
approved by industrj- leaders as represented by the four Department of 
Agriculture milk study committees before any legislative action may be 
deemed necessary. Additional factors with regard to country- plant de- 
ductions should include: (1) volume of Grade A milk s*A\\ being 
shipped in cans in the Central Valley; '2 the number tion of 

country plants most needed for marketing and manu ^; and 

(3) the periods of most vital need for such plants. 


f. itANsronAnoN ghabgcs 

r. In meeesat years, mimy CaHfiooaia maSSk pro^v. ''■pt^ ?iave cKMaTcrted 
to ir«fr%era?ted hxASm^ tam^ss £p<mi leaxuB for ^j;'° Ik. l^tanj 

«nda itwaDT-enra^nDflB w^ere fisaaaaeed, at least m pajv. .,..;_ ......utors im- 

t«re)Bt«d am iaaeireasiiajg' total ■effieienkex, Biat «uidb uajcwrratiojis require 
capital msHssy ankd maeipeaffle tfoe fam ■ " '■■.■"'' " pro- 

iStaetifm and Ihsm^&F/e Ike k natinTalS^^' :uro 

^m SDidla inrifiSltuBetaulLfi. 

2L SaifirftaweK «f Gtaiiie A jaaaik «j^ ■■ ■ -p 

murptmi maSk ito be diriegibad fipoaua #uM tio ma.! 

2 and 3. dwK ^ prwes ame l»Mt«i <mi ** ^ 

tnrad pgmkhds «aeii as Iwatifaer stad v. -^ 

aie ^wsnnnaM^ based on iBJ^afes- j .litteiiur^d 

prodndlas sodla as aee (epeano, (&&iiia^ c:. :. 

3- In 1^5§, t3ae Bfuireara 'Of Mi!I3s StatoiliEatioji, aft^-r •ptfi^ilif 1^*>^rTTisn5. 
«et a 20-«eni per liiandredve^giait dilSniaataaA f<i>f Ck 
wients to Gfade A pitsdiiafiesv ^ii^aof: an liwilk Umkik 
fKUties bnyani^ soilllk aaa Ube Oeotral Vallltey .tioaxipSAed v. 
metaim was {Migponed am the lSi@0 B'^j^'-'^s''^^ ^'^HSAon aii^u .. 
AttiwnBkejr <!ren«aL Hicnrfer^r, tSae in^f. •:« aaadifiat^ci 

nndtfsstood tibe ©mc&w and miadie »«t2TO!a.L'ijAe j.>iijiBii«aits itwtaJxuv it'^'rv.i'.i'j lo 
{Mwdneeis befogs lOiRisil aiettai(« -was fi^^ 

The esmmaiAsie v^mmmeaadR, am pvermadj^ ittoat eriteiia fior itiie iesta!»- 
Hiiuuesat «rf all saadfci daffiEKwnftaal^ '^"- 'T'-i'iv rT/..f,ri(^d aD^d apj"" '■'""' ^-y 
iadmtry kaders as ire^paKmbed - r-tm^ut lof A . - ":- 

auHk stndjr aswanaiittiees IbeCwne axij juji.xi'r'j- j^^risJatiT'e »eiafm ma;>' L»e 
dfienacd neeeHHury. FsantftkenBaiCMne, i&e leooaaiBDnitt.*^ ireexMaoMkeiiids itftiat lesar- 
avadt tcani|MM:tai«»a ptraiiettftees aaa naalk noa* "'f (eonHEsdi^r^ ligr indnK- 

txj kadess wiitfti a wvsw tfm'ard tftxe (oatai/. rjf lerateraa to a^esnulato 

leafie anran^auendx. 


1. In Aprils 1S@0« at itlne meqtoMsfiit <9f ^iKra^iemor E^daaamd O. Bawnraa^ 
INmetor Wtdfiana d Wame '«€ itftke D^pasitaskenit <of ApitmlLtiiia^ ap- 
peiateH tiie finGt tof £oar daisy indtrntsy fitoii^' (eotmana^^ 

stndf pMiAeans alEfaeitani^ malk pmodfue^ion and laaidKitan^. TStkeee ««MBBB£t- 
toes aie mmp§me4. «€ 11 Ofadie A p? 11 Omadie B pfwlneeax, li$ 

f«p>«»eadtaita««B «^ proeenHscs aaad d. -« «€ ooaffikid; an^ and W 

p e ptwffmftat g ^^es «€ pt«ia<E«B9ai and dfti>aj-iiiUiitoas iqI SBannafaeAnariag^ noilk. 
A' H Wl^nll. A^ggiealtmK IHa^eetor wnOaaaaa Kfoftint ^ets as 'dbajraaoaaa of aHl 
JEsnr ««i[Daiaitt,e«iB. 

2. lligrt af tibe w«g4E dfiaaie Ifjr iJUit awaaasijiittocs ai ikx- 
fl w aoainBd wida pram^laB igNrawnBan;^ (oonitsacit iP€&al5' 
af tibvee «f Ae insnaKiittofis lttT« pBus^poaed aestaici 

Mineqpentitf laeen ditewBed, l»odb iaa ficskcral ap^.. ...... .. ... . . ...y....^^ 


detail, at least four times by members of all the committees meeting 
jointly. One possible result of that elfort will be a standardization of 
eonti-act relations, flexible enough to meet the diverse and complex re- 
quirements of the entire industry but definitive and inclusive enough 
to alleviate several current problems. Such problems include: (1) in- 
creasing surpluses of Grade A milk resulting from more efficient pro- 
duction methods and continued conversion of Grade B producers to 
Grade A production on low-guarantee contracts; (2) declining per 
capita consumption resulting from mor(^ sophisticated consumer buying 
habits and great competition for the consumer dollars from an increas- 
ing array of consumer goods and services; and (3) the disparity 
between farm costs and farm prices resulting from international mone- 
tary inflation and domestic overproduction. More specifically, the study 
committees have been most interested in (1) how to control and what 
to do with the Grade A milk surplus, (2) hoAv to improve the economic 
position of all California milk producers and {'■]) how to improve the 
administration of the Milk Control Act. 

3. Expansion of the Bureau of Milk Stabilization was effected Sep- 
tember 1, 1960 by the addition of a third control area and 14 new per- 
sonnel positions including enioreement investigators and auditors with- 
out an increase in the industry assessment of .2 cents per pound of 
milkfat for administration. 


The committee recommends that the four study committees be con- 
tinued indefinitely to work with the Department of Agriculture staff in 
discussing and considering problems affecting California's dairy indus- 
try. Current studies are the first major evidence that spokesmen for all 
segments of the dairy industry are willing to co-operate for effective 
results since the Dairy Council, now defunct, was established 41 years 
ago. ^loreover, the connnittee believes that continuing sucli studies is 
vitally necessary to the growth of California's agricultural economy in 
general and dairy industry in particular. The committee commends 
Director Warne, his staff' and the 48 members of the industry commi- 
tees for their efforts. 

General Conclusion 

Finally, it must be said that the Legislature has always recognized 
the fact that the California dairy industry is a dynamic and complex 
economic institution in which constant adjustments are necessary to 
conform with constantly changing conditions and practices. Thus, over 
the years, the Milk Control Act has been, and will continue to be, 
subject to constant revision and amendment. However, the committee 
has no current recommendations to revise or amend the Act at this 
time because of two reasons made clear by the previously-listed find- 
ings: (1) current litigations in milk marketing; and (2) the studies 
being made by four industry connnittees. That is, action now by this 
committee is precluded by current industry action in the courts and in 
conference rooms. 


(A.B. 2319, Porter-1959) 


It might best serve the purposes of this report if the several kinds of 
retail milk sales were briefly described at the outset. Such sales involve 
several relationship which obviously pertain to the simplest form of 
the modern market mechanism : producer to processor to distributor to 
consumer. Put another way : raw product to processed product to con- 
sumed product. A simple and graphic way to define terms in this con- 
text, cow to consumer, follows : 

1. Ranch sales 
Producer/processor to consumer. 

2. Plant dock sales 

Producer to processor/distributor to consumer. 

3. Depot sales 

Producer to processor to consumer. 

4. Grocery sales 

a/ Producer to processor/wholesale distributor to store to con- 

b/ Producer to (processor/store) to consumer. 

c/ Producer to (processor/ wholesale distributor/store) to con- 

5. Home delivery sales 

a/ Producer to processor/distributor to consumer. 

b/ Producer to processor/distributor to sub-distributor to con- 

Despite the gross over-simplification the above outline includes all pres- 
ent distinctive distributive methods in fluid milk marketing. The sim- 
ilarity between the plant dock (2) and traditional home delivery (5a) 
is only apparent; the consumer performs a distribution function by 
going to the plant dock which is performed for her by the processor/ 
distributor when milk is delivered to the doorstep. Likewise, the distinc- 
tion between the plant dock (2) and the depot (3) is only apparent; 
the consumer performs a distribution function by going to either one 
although the dock may be at a plant which wholesales milk to groceries 
and/or subdistributors and retails milk to doorsteps while the depot, as 
such, has no alternative outlets. It may be, however, that dock sales have 
grown to the point where alternate outlets represent only a small part 
of total plant volume.^ Traditional grocery stores sales (4a) have led 

' See transcript, Committee hearing, Paramount, California, November 12, 1959, pp. 


4— L-2037 


to "captive integration " (4b) such as Safeway Stores' Lucerne Dairy- 
Division or "captive stores" (4c) such as Arclen Farms' Mayfair Mar- 
kets in Los Angeles. Two other examples of operations not illustrated 
above are: cooperative milk Avholesale purchases whereby several 
grocers may buy their milk supplies joi)itly in volume at lower prices 
for quantity; and restricted purchases whereb}^ a grocery chain may 
buy only one or a few brands. Home delivery has also grown more com- 
plex from the ladling of raw milk from the producer's can into the con- 
sumer's jar at the doorstep; nowadays subdistributors or peddlers (5b) 
compete successfully in some areas by selling milk bottled under their 
own label bj' a major processor /distributor. 

Although confusion may be caused by the variety of apparently 
synonymous terms, characteristic dift'erences seem to distinguish one 
kind of operation from another. For example: the ranch processor- 
distributor b}^ definition is a farm operation where cows are milked and 
the milk is processed, packaged and sold direct to consumers. The plant 
dock usually may be only one sales outlet for a distributor who may 
have other sales outlets including wholesale and home delivery routes. 
The depot, conversely, has neitlier cows present nor alternate sales 
outlets. The conventional distributor usually merchandises milk 
through retail outlets such as restaurants, gi'oceries and home delivery 
routes. It is connnon and coniusing to call botii plant docks and depots 
"drive-ins" or to refer to ranch, dock and depot outlets as "cash-and- 
carry." Whatever the labels, prevailing legal and administrative prece- 
dents seem to differentiate among distributive methods about in the 
manner described.- Until modified by legislation or adjudications in 
current or subsequent litigations, such precedents and standards are 
likely to continue to prevail. 


Historically, the farmer has sokl his output to consumers at the farm 
gate at prices less than those paid in the marketplace or at the doorstep. 
The obvious reason is the difference in transportation costs incurred by 
the farmer. In 1940, after nearly three years of administrative experi- 
ence with the resale provisions of the Milk Control Act, the Bureau of 
Milk Stabilization authorized dairymen to sell milk processed at the 
farm for less than grocery carry-out and home delivery prices; the 
spread was called the "ranch differential" and such authorization then 
controlled prices for only a limited percentage of the total fluid milk 
volume sold in the state.^ Processing ]ilant operators and grocers Avere 
already authorized to sell fluid milk for less than it was delivered to the 
doorstep. As a result, there were four basic resale prices — at the ranch, 
at the plant, at the grocery and at the home — which seemed to reflect 
substantative differences in the costs of distribution. That is, if the con- 
sumer choose to perform a part of distribution, she was entitled to buy 
for proportionately less. Until 19r)2, the ])lant resale prices were gen- 
erally only 1 cent a quart under the grocery carry-out price but then, 

" L). A. Weinland ".M:irkotinK of Fluid Milk Under Price-Fixinp Statutes" California 
Department of Agriculture, lO.").!, 6p. Cf. transcript, Committee hearing, Sacra- 
mento. Calirnrniii, .January 20. liniO, jjp. lS-fi2. 

'Estimated by Bureau of Milk Stabilization officials never to have exceeded .2% of 
total fluid" milk volume sold at retail in the state. 


in Stockton, after cost surveys and a public hearing, the bureau au- 
thorized one plant to sell fluid milk from its dock at 2 cents a quart 
less than the p-vocery store carry-out price. Subsequently, a new pro- 
cessing plant was built and shortly thereafter the San Joaquin market- 
ing area had several other similar depot operations. A similar 2 cents a 
quart differential was granted in the Sacramento marketing area and 
reliable witnesses have estimated that depots in both the San Joaquin 
and Sacramento marketing areas now sell approximately 15 percent of 
the total fluid milk volume in each area.'' Other differentials in Northern 
California range from 1 cent in the Monterey marketing area to 1^ 
cents in the Alameda-Contra Costa marketing area ; that means that 
depots or docks in those areas are selling fluid milk at prices below the 
grocer carry-out price. Still other marketing areas in the north part of 
the state do not have differentials even though depots are operating. 
Under the differentials, however, depots are selling as much as 10 per- 
cent of the total fluid milk market volume in some areas. ^ In general, 
throughout Northern California the depot operation, characterized by 
easy automobile access, single brand bottled in glass and limited mer- 
chandise prevails over the plant dock operation. 

In Southern California, however, there are three kinds of consumer 
purchases at the plant: at ranch processing plants; at plant docks 
which usually distribute by other methods as well ; and at depots. Prices 
of fluid milk at the ranch are 2 cents a quart and prices at plant docks 
and depots are 1 cent a quart below the grocery carry-out price al- 
though some docks and depots have not taken advantage of the avail- 
able 1 cent differential under the area marketing order.^ 

In sum, consumers have traditionally paid less for finished products 
when available at the farm or at the processing plant. The difference 
between the farm or plant price and the retail or delivered price tra- 
ditionally and essentially represents a difference in service performed; 
if the consumer performs part of distribution, she is entitled to a lower 
product price. This common sense approach to marketing has led, 
under price control of milk by the state, to milk marketing orders 
which fixed prices lower than those for normal resale distribution and 
perhaps thus has enabled some milk producers and some milk proc- 
essors to sell at a competitive advantage predicated upon lower costs. 
Definitions in the law. Sections 4216-18 of the Agricultural Code, and 
price-fixing criteria. Sections 4350-4363 of the Agricultural Code, seem 
to require distinctions in price representative of distinctions in cost; 
at least that has been the interpretation of persons charged with ad- 
ministering the law and, in general, courts have upheld their inter- 


The rapid and widespread development of milk depot sales in 
Northern California and of ranch, dock and depot sales in Southern 
California in the past five years has been a cause of great concern 

* See transcript, Committee liearing, San Francisco, California, November 10, 1959, 

p. 115. 
s Ibid. 

• Charts indicating tlie number and location of docks and depots and the various 

differentials are appended. 
' For a discussion of applicable judicial decisions, see the following section on 



t<))f<^))g>)i<^^)t th«» l^l<fon<>a d«iry uui«.<ir>\ 0« om? side, most conTeu- 

. - Nal«s unless sow^re^v 

le Milk Ooutn^l Aot, 
i>u r s;uto, rjuich. d<vk «iut i. vs in&ist that tho law 

is ;; to iuchulo mawifoM pr. ;.als ptviiioatod uixui 

oiTi&l ditforfii^^ii^ As u^tia). the pn>ilueers are in tiie middle a«d more 
g«-r ■ -. . ! . -i. ^^ii^^xjf. probloius sueh as deptvsseii farm priees 

wno. : tirade A surplus. poi>r o\>utract tvlatious aud 

^ As usual tixv the ^a iv 
liiunir the mv^st quar.r.:> 

\ N^ on it eaiaeted the Milk 

i^ was market stability to protect all 

..i.u the law necessarily declines to pre- 

s sueh slabilit.v, it has been interpreted 

to mean, with re:si>eet 

isre eonsumption but 

i'txmu reAsonabV.v oifi- 

,. - nandate is to irxiaran- 

jTiW quatitx' prvKtuet at a price they can aiToni to 

<^ ensuTYSs pnxlueers and distributors a fair return 

<. It is obvious therefore that the Lejrislature in- 

i>e flexible enough to meet the fluetuations o£ supply 

Ooutrol Ael in the 
sueh diwrse inler\v> 
eisjcly define what . 


ttt V ^ 
kis^ e:iK>U^ 

eietit pr©dn. 
le^ <\msumers 
jM»y but trlv > 
«Ma their ii; . - 
tuided the iaw 
and demand. 
Soerv - ^ ■ " • ^ ■ ^■. ■-. • ' .VI 


eut methtvis ot distribntJon whieh reiieet didEerences in cost of oj>era- 

CouTeutional dtstributx^rs sa>' emphatically "'no.'^ Ranch, doclc aud 
dev ' ■'.: ors say ' * yes ' " with e<i)ual leaL 

1. the pi\>bleju api>tNiirs to be complicated by several oilier 

tmc' .ig which are; {,1) market 

me: - >) c«»utracmal disWs"! ^(M1< s 
law, v»bvK»ttsly, c©mi>etitioK 

Sitri|>s demand. Da:ry pro^iv. - - 

the dwsumerV - sj mUk >hich is able to 

buyius» * m«r«> t^.^i .^.^uxl arrai. v . v.., ay products than ever before. 
Market ctMupetition affect;s all parts of the industry but most especially 

dollar upon 

lion methods 

ave l>eeji 

: process- 

N trucks.* 

> .iluctance 

t equities increase. For 

..rketin^ area 

n \ov«nber, 


r^!V011 of the 

- . oni- 

. :_., .;c lor 
bu^-. and is 

the merehaudtser l^iecause he miist siecurv the 
miikk the pTvdi»cer and processor ar<* de^vudeut 
kare ehanp^ in the v 

some startl. . ,:ical inuv 

ing aud boitUus machmes. ref ric 
As retail v^iuue -i.v i^i.'s because . . 
or ehauj!^ in - )>atterns. 

iostanee, distriiv.--.. r> •-.•. :h-: A\v. 
requested and revt-ivenl .-. 


. «, DeoMB- 


1959 beeansp of m^T^^as*^ invii^etTwntfl dfi<" to TolnTn*» lo<si« • A similar 
increase* wa- 1 this ; -osfts. It 

is obvions, : that «_ - has im- 

proved its eftitMf'ncy at a jrreaTer and faster rate than has distribntion 
in the pa»t few years and nowhere is the ease in point more true than 
in California. Contraetnal disinflations between most disrtribiitors and 
their prodneers have nr. ' ' " ' ' ' ' r in the fn^wth ^' -■■-■-- 

and do<?ks. Tx>w r]?i>s 1 _ n of Grad*^ Br 

to Grade A 
dneers and 

prodncera have eaus<Hi srime pnxiii'ens to tnm from dis- 
tribntion method^s to alternate ontlets. Poor eontract r . . . .. _ .. rally 
tend to increase the chances that both eontractnal parties will con- 
sistently ov-' ': ' r - — ' • ■' ' - ■ 1' — --.---,1-...^ 

greater tot;^ 
in? their i: 
the law tA : 
tion of the term " natural jrrowth " by the Bnrean of . 

The law charsres the Dire<?tor (Bnrean) ^^ -'■■ r^rice^. .,._:"; 

to cover ennmerated coists and retnm a r • profit on investment 
(8 percent ^-- ■"'- -^''■■---^- -^ -r^vr. . _. .i. .^ 

cost when r 

ha' t 

thr 2 

cent a as ha„s apparently caused 

a 15 p', . .. _ ... .. •-• in the past 4 years in 

those areas. In brief, what may appear to be "natural g7Y>wth" for a 

depot r ~ "^ ..V. _ '. 1 v_^ ^^ "nnnatnral decline" for the eon- 

ventioi. area. 

In Slim, ihe ra of 

ranch. d^^'-V ?.: rrr>- 

texos ha... .i. . . . .,:.'. ,......,,_ :^ 

the continnetl ; rty of the ^ trol Act, And as sttcJi is 

the rA>r\ rh - ., .-v_. * of all '-f the 

CnhioTv.A ,{ the . re to 

en- .s sui4)ly of fresL, Tftiioles*orae 


AasemMy RiP 2^1** ''Porter — 1*>i>^> wwnM h«v* ^fn*f»d*d d^^Tiitive 

sectk>r- *s 
as r«ia.. 

products; It won Id have f>ermitted the cor of a <; .1 

for ranch prrvc^'^- • ■ ''■"■•- -.»--■•"- .-..-r^-^ ^.^.-. ^. -■..-■.-. _ ,,., ,,;.,,.r 

comm<viitif^ f-'\ dire«t to 

consuraers- It ^ :i\r I'airv ,i i a; fornia and 


the California Grocers' Association. Tt was heard before the Assembly 
Committee on Livestock and Dairies twice during the 1959 General 
Session and failed of passage both times. It has been heard five times 
before this committee since June 19, 1959. 


The central point at is.sue between the "cash-and-carry" operators 
and conventional distributors is whether a dock or a depot is a dis- 
tributor (Sec. 4216, Ag. Code) or a retail store (Sec. 4218, Ag. Code). 
As distributors with evident lower prices, dock and depot operators 
have been granted a ])rice lower than those charged by grocery and 
home delivery retailers; as retail stores, they would have to charge the 
same price as other retail outlets. 

Aligned with the "cash-and-carry" operators in this dispute is the 
Bureau of Milk Stabilization for its decision to grant a differential 
predicated upon lower costs is reliant upon its broad discretionary 
powers to administer the Milk Control Act. Aligned with conventional 
distributors on the other side are the grocers whose daily milk sales 
has been severely jeopardized by docks and depots. 

The principal arguments made at hearings before this committee, in 
discussions by the milk study committees of the Department of Agri- 
culture, and in legal briefs submitted in various litigations to be dis- 
cussed later may be summarized as follows : 

1. Conventional distributors contend that docks and depots are re- 
tail stores in fact because of the number of food items they stock in 
addition to milk and dairy products and because of the manner in 
which they merchandise. "Cash-and-carry" operators contend that the 
presence of processing facilities at the sales location makes them a 
distributor and they sell only a limited amount of "dairy-related" food 
items sucii as bread, eggs, cookies and fruit juices whereas groceries sell 
upwards of 8,000 separate items. 

2. Conventional distributors contend that marketing order provi- 
sions granting a dock differential, except for traditional ranch sales, 
in the several marketing areas are void per se because the director is 
prohibited from establishing sejiarate prices for retail sales regardless 
of cost ; they cite the Challenge case in 1943 which listed methods 
of distribution. "Cash-and-carry" opprators counter that Section 4360 
of the Agricultural Code permits the director discretionary power to 
establish prices for other methods when justified by costs and that 
such provisions are therefor not void. 

3. Conventional distributors contend that such provisions are void 
because they violate the unfair practices section (Article 2, Chapter 16 
of the Agricultural Code and especially Section 4141) of the Milk Con- 
trol Act and discriminatorily prevent competitors from meeting com- 
petitive prices in good faith. "" operators contend that 
nothing in the law prevents grocers from building processing plants at 
store locations to qualify as a separate method of distribution and sell 
at the plant dock differential. 

4. Conventional distributors contend that substantial shifts in retail 
volume from groceries to depot.s. ranging from 10 percent to 15 percent 
of total average monthly sales, have severely disrupted the normal flow 


of milk aiid threaten the existence of the Milk Control Act ; they add 
that lost volume by irrooeries causes price increases which mean, in 
effect, that grocery milk customers subsidize dock and depot milk cus- 
tomers. "Cash-and-carry" operators counter that grocers did precisely 
the same thing to home delivery routes when a price differential was in- 
troduced in milk marketing prior to the Milk Control Act which then 
took cognizance of the difference when enacted ; they add that the law 
should not foreclose any new venture which increases efficient distribu- 

5. Conventional distributors contend that differences in transport- 
ation costs, as detined in the law. allow the Director to set a lower resale 
price for ranch sales but do not permit him to set lower prices for other 
''retail'' outlets. "Cash-and-carry" operators reply that such trans- 
portation costs as incurred by plant docks and depots are paid by the 
farmer and are not retiected in their processing costs; they say that 
both plant docks and depots have precisely the same range of processing 
costs as ranch sales and are therefore entitled to even lower differ- 

Subsidiary contentions on the part of conventional distributors in- 
clude (1) the differential serves as an "umbrella" for inefficient oper- 
ators; (2) home delivery routes are jeopardized by dock and depot 
differentials; (3) the jobs of thousands of distributor employees are 
threatened because each "cash-and-carry" operation replaces 1'2 men 
in another plant; (4) although milk represents only 8 percent of the 
average total daily grocery sales, it is a "traffic -builder" and some 
grocers have lost as much as 50 percent of their daily milk volume to 
nearby depots; and (o) some integrated or "captive" grocery opera- 
tions could sell below present dock and depot differentials and still 
make money but they would rather not disrupt stability. "Cash-and- 
carry" operators answer (1) lower costs based on different transporta- 
tion requirements indicate that docks and depots are more efficient than 
other methods of distribution; (2) home delivery routes were severely 
curtailed by the grocers' previous differential; (3) docks and depots 
can absorb most of the displaced employees; (4) milk would be sold 
as a "loss leader" to build customer traffic if grocers were permitted 
to meet dock prices; (5) such "captive'' or integrated operations are 
still conventional distributors and if granted a differential solely on 
costs would cause the extinction of the smaller, less efficient "mama- 
and-papa" grocers. 

Producers, as noted above, seem to be in the middle and some appear 
eager to help reconcile both sides. Some producers apparently believe 
that docks and depots give one producer's milk a price advantage 
over another producer 's ; ^^ others apparently believe that conventional 
distributors have discriminated against them and forced them to seek 
other means of marketing their milk.^- But most representatives of 
producer groups seem to favor a minor change in the law — similar to 
Senate Bill 017 (Shaw — 19591 — to allow the director somewhat greater 
discretion in setting differentials higher or lower than costs indicate in 
order to ensure market stability. 

"See transcript. Committee hearing, Stoolcton, California, November 9, 1959, pp. 

^IMd., pp. 139-142, pp. 147-149. 


A Department of Aj^riculture spokesman enumerated four ap- 
proaches to differential pricinfr: (1) Assembly Bill 2819 which would 
have eliminated dock and depot differentials entirely except for ranch 
"cash-and-carry"; (2) legislation to authorize the director to set 
resale prices on costs alone; (3) repeal of the Desmond Act, or resale, 
provisions of the ]\Iilk Control Act entirely as proposed in Assembly 
Bill 2852 (Britschgi— 1950) ; or (4) letting the present law stand to 
allow the director limited discretion in setting prices. ^^ 


California's Milk Control Act has been scrutinized and interpreted 
by judicial review almost continuously since its enactment 25 years 
ago so, in addition to periodic legislative revision and amendment, the 
regulation of milk ])rices has been dynamic in the State. Therefore, 
it appears necessary to briefly list the most relevant cases adjudicated 
in the past 25 years before discussing several current and pending 
actions which test the Agriculture Director's authority to establish 
price differenials for ranch sales, plant docks and milk depots. 

Of central importance, of course, are the constitutional cases adjndi- 
cated by the California Supreme Court : 

1. In re WiUing (12 Cal. 2d 591, 1939) involved a producer- 
distributor who had not obtained a license to retail milk. The Court 
held, among other things, that a processing plant owned by a person 
who also retailed milk was a separate business enterprise subject to 
license requirements. 

2. Jersetj Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock (13 Cal. 2d 620, 1939) 
involved a distributor Avho refused to abide by a marketing area price 
order. The Court held, among other things, that the Legislature may 
delegate to an administrative agency the power to judge the facts of 
a case to which a particular statute applies. 

3. Ray v. Parker (15 Cal. 2d 275, 1940) involved a distributor who 
violated pricing provisions of a marketing order. The Court held 
duly-fouiuled legislative power could be delegated but similar judicial 
power could not be delegated to an administrative agency. However, 
Justice Edmonds dissented by saying, at page 318, that such agency 
should substantiate proof of findings by submitting factual data at 
public hearings. 

4. Challenge Cream & Butter Association v. Parker (23 Cal. 2d 137, 
1943) involved a distributor who sold milk in glass containers at less 
than set minimum prices. The Court held that prices should be uniform 
for like quantities regardless of container. Incidentally, the Court 
defined three methods of distribution as wholesale, retail carr^'-out and 
retail home delivery." 

• Incorporated here only to illu.strate the direction of the law and not intended to be 
eitlior comprehensive or indicative. None of i.s concerned with the current 
controversy lietween tlie state and the federal governments ahout contract sales 
on Ijid to tlie numerous military bases in California ; see Chapter 3, section on 
miliv study cornmittees. 

"See transcript, Committee hearing. Sacramento, California, September 4, 1959, 
pp. 42-43. 

" At page 141, the court defined niarl<et stability as a condition under which ". . . the 
l)eoi)le shall he al)le in purcliase mi lit at the lowest price at which enough dis- 
tributors operating with rea.sonable efficiency will be able to do business at a 
reasonable profit so as to supply the demand of all the consumers in the market- 
ing area." 


5. Knu(hcn Creamery Co. v. Brock (37 Cal. 2d 485, 1951) involved 
violations of minimum prices paid producers. The Court held, at page 
490, that the Milk Control Act is "aimed primarily at what the pro- 
ducer shall receive, and not at what the dealer or consumer shall pay." 

6. Misasi v. Jacohsen is now^ under submission to the State Supreme 
Court. Oral arguments were heard at a hearing in bank on November 
1, 1960 in Sacramento and the Court may be expected to have rendered 
its decision by the time this report is published. At issue in the appeal 
is whether the Director of Agriculture has the power to sub-classify 
methods of distribution without legislation. Initiated in 1956, the case 
involves the setting of a price differential of 2 cents a quart for plant 
dock and milk depots in the San Joaquin marketing area; lower courts 
have held that lower costs, predicated upon distinctions in service 
rendered consumers, indicate docks and depots are a "separate and 
distinct method of distribution" as implied by Section 4360 of the 
Agriculture Code.^-""' 

Appellate court decisions have had considerable influence in Cali- 
fornia milk marketing : 

1. United Milk Producers v. Cecil (47 Cal App 2d 758, 1941) in- 
volved a distributor cooperative which argued the Cooperative Market- 
ing Act invalidated provisions of the Milk Control Act. The court 
rejected the contention. 

2. Marin Dairymen's Milk Co. v. Brock (100 Cal App 2d 686, 1950) 
involved a distributor who refused to pay producers a Class 1 mini- 
mum price for milk which had been declared used for Class 4 purposes 
when, in fact, it had been used for Class 1. The court found against 
the distributor. 

3. Sentell v. Jacohsen (163 Cal App 2d 748, 1958) involved a dis- 
tributor who complained that his costs, for selling milk in glass, were 
lower and he was therefore entitled to a lower resale price than the 
minimum set. The court held against the distributor. 

4. Wendel Farms, Inc. v. Jacohsen is on appeal to the Third District 
Court of Appeals. Respondents' briefs were filed October 24, 1960 in 
Sacramento and the court may be expected to hear oral arguments 
shortly after the Legislature convenes pending the Supreme Court's 
decision in the Misasi case. At issue in the case, the first of two actions 
between the two parties, is whether the Director of Agriculture can 
set a dock or depot price at a grocery carry-out level without previ- 
ously auditing costs. The lower court in Sonoma County held against 
the director. Initiated in 1959, the case involves a depot operation sell- 
ing milk at 2 cents a quart below the established minimum price set 
for depots and groceries ; the director asked for an injunction enjoining 
Wendel Farms because cost surveys could not be made until the depot 
had been in operation. 

In addition to the Misasi case before the Supreme Court and the first 
Wendel Farms case before the appellate court, there are several other 
depot cases pending in lower courts. For instance, in Sonoma County 
the second Wendel Farms case involves an action by Wendel against 

^ Excerpts from the opinion of Justice Van Dyke, Third District Court of Appeals 
are appended. 


the director in which Wendel complains that the Bureau of Milk Sta- 
bilization's cost surveys showed lower costs which the}' contend justifies 
a 2 cent a quart differential instead of the 1 cent a quart granted. A 
similar action is pending in Stanislaus County with the complainant 
being Lafayette Dairy but seven other cases there and one in Contra 
Costa County involve allegedly illegal refunds on glass bottles which, 
in effect, i)ermit the distributor to sell iluid milk below set miuimums; 
defendants in those actions include Lafayette Dairy, ]\Iilk Co-op of 
California, Johnson Dairy Deliveiy Co. and W. 11. ]Markley in Stan- 
islaus County and Ace Dairy Co. in Contra Costa County. Prior to the 
lower court finding in the first Wendcl Farms case, the director set a 
similar resale minimum (for ranch and depot sales at the prevailing 
grocery carry-out price) in Santa Clara County Avhere, in actions be- 
tween Milkhorn Dairy Drive-in and tlie director, the lower court held 
that such a pricing provision was invalid because no actual cost surveys 
including the depot operation had been made. Subsequently, in ]Mon- 
terey County the director jiermitted a depot to open without setting a 
depot price and then auditing the operation. The depot was selling 2 
cents a quart below the prevailing grocery price. After a hearing, the 
price was set 1 cent a quart below the ncAV grocery carry-out price and 
com]>lainant Etap Farms, Inc. asked an injunction against the director 
to enjoin the pricing provision. Th(^ court found for the director. No 
legal actions in Southern California have been reported. 

In ]9o3 Safeway Stores, Inc. initiated an action in Kings County 
concerning a marketing order; in brief, Safeway sought a lower price 
predicated upon the lower costs of their highly integrated dairy divi- 
sion. Lucerne. After a lengthy presentation b^- both sides, the superior 
court judge took the ease under submission but died before rendering 
any decision and the case was subsecpiently never reopened. 

It may be observed that since the inception of the Misasi case, the 
Department of Agriculture (specifically, the Bureau of ]\Iilk Stabiliza- 
tion) has altered its practices in setting resale prices for plant docks 
and depots. Until 1952, the pricing provisions for plant docks in mar- 
keting area resale orders established prices only 1 cent a quart below 
grocery carry-out price levels. Since then the 2 cent a quart differential 
in two marketing areas and consecpKnit large shifts in volume from 
conventional to dock and depot distributors in those areas have perhaps 
demonstrated to bureau officials that wide diff'erentials tend to disrupt 
normal market transitions and tend, furthermore, to lead to expensive 
litigations which might have been avoided if narrower differentials 
liad been established. Under recent court decisions, the bureau has 
tended to .set and maintain a 1 cent a quart differential for plant docks 
and depots after cost surveys were made during operational periods 
rather than follow two alternative practices: (1) setting a 2 cent a 
({uart differential solely on costs which has .subsecjuently threatened 
market stability or (2) setting the dock and dcjiot price at the grocery 
carry-out price before depots began operating so that cost surveys 
could be made during normal distributing operations. Although litiga- 
tions continue, perhaps the current practice, exemplified in the Etap 
Farms ease, is the best assurance for market stability and the "natural 
growth" of docks and depots in the unsettled transitional period now 
apparent in California milk marketing. 


(S.B. 1167, Cobey-1 959) 


Again, it may best serve the purposes of the following discussion if 
the terms are defiuecl at the outset. 

Manufacturing or Grade B milk is defined by Section 452 of the 
Agricultural Code which says, in part, that it is milk ' ' which does not 
conform to the requirements of market milk. ' ' Some of the requirements 
for market or Grade A milk to which Grade B milk producers do not 
have to conform are contained in subsequent sections of the code and 
may be summarized as follows: (1) bimonthly inspection of herd; (2) 
rigid sanitation standards on the farm and in the plant; (3) process- 
ing by certified personnel; and (4) building construction standards. 
Another distinctive difference is that manufacturing or Grade B milk 
producers are subsidized by federal price support on milkfat at 59.6 
cents a pound and on fluid skim milk in bulk at $3.22 a hundredweight. 
However, the price to producers of market or Grade A milk set by 
the State has been predicated in part on the price paid for Grade B 
milk at the ranch under Section 4281 of the Agricultural Code so that, 
by law, an economic relationship exists between the two grades of milk. 
Perhaps the most comprehensible distinction lies in the definitive 
classifications of the uses to which Grade A milk may be put under 
Sections 4226-28 of the Agricultural Code. They may be summarized 
thus: (1) Class 1 milk is all fluid bottle products; (2) Class 2 milk 
is all market-grade milk used in the manufacture of ice cream mix, 
cottage cheese and buttermilk; (3) Class 3 milk is all market-grade 
milk used in the manufacture of hard or processed cheese, butter, dried 
skim or nonfat milk, defatted milk solids and dried buttermilk. 

Since 1935, prices to producers of market milk have been controlled 
by the State under the Milk Control Act and since 1937 wholesale and 
resale prices to processors and distributors of fluid milk products have 
been similarly fixed. Because nonfluid products may be made from 
either market or manufacturing milk, the State does not control resale 
prices for those commodities although it does control the price to pro- 
ducers of market milk whose excess fluid production is diverted to 
manufacturing uses as classified above. The Milk Control Act does not 
apply to either raw" or finished product prices for manufacturing milk. 


It was relatively a short time ago that milkshed meant the immediate 
dairy production area surrounding a city. But since cities began growr 
ing quickly into metropolitan centers, stretching their suburbs out to 
occupy farm and dairy lands, milksheds have grown proportionately 



fast and far. California cities have p:rown faster and spread further 
than any other comparable areas in the country in the 15 years since 
the end of World War II. Obviously, sucli growth has had repercus- 
sions far beyond the last new house in the latest subdivision because 
the growing pains of California's cities reverberate the length of the 
State with increased land values, higher prices and higher costs and 
more people. 

High production standards brought on by the war have been main- 
tained because investments had to be maintained and even increased 
in a higli-consumption, high-competition economy. Nowhere has agri- 
cultural production increased in the past 25 years so spectacularly 
as in the California dairy industry. During the period 1937-1059, total 
milk production in California increased 85.5 percent from 4,297,000 
to 7,974,000 pounds annually, average production per milk cow in- 
creased almost 28 percent from (),550 to 8,950 pounds annually and 
total cash receipts from farm marketing of dairy products increased 
314 percent from $90,758,000 to $375,943,000.^ Biit when resale provi- 
sions for market milk were incorporated into the ]\Iilk Control Act by 
passage of the Desmond bill (S.B. 100, Chapter 3, Statutes of 1937), 
nearly 55 percent of all milk produced in California came from manu- 
facturing milk producers and 10 years later, in 1947, such producers 
were selling 37 percent of the total volume.- In 1959, manufacturing 
milk producers produced only 18 percent of the total volume in the 
state.^ jNIoreover, since the peak year of 1952, the average annual price 
paid to market milk producers has declined 90 cents to $4.74 a hundred- 
weight at the same time the price to manufacturing milk producers 
was declining $1.13 to $3.28 a hundredweight.* Estimates of the cost 
of production for a hundredweight of manufacturing milk range from 
55 cents to nearly $1 more than the competitive subsidized price." And 
one witness told this Committee that 1,223 of the 10,002 manufacturing 
milk producers quit luilk production in 1958." There are approximately 
8,800 manufacturing milk dairies with an average herd of 25 to 30 
cows each and 4,200 market milk dairies with an average herd of 175 
to 185 cows each in California, according to recent industry estimates. 

Briefly, the problem appears to be: can anything be done to help 
preserve and protect all segments of the California dairy industry 
without sacrificing one or another segment? 

Most manufacturing milk producers seem to emj)hatically agree that 
something can, and should, be done and the sooner the better. Many 
market milk producers, looking to the competition between their sur- 
plus production and manufacturing milk are not sure what can or 
ought to be done. Most processors and distributors also looking to 
their competition in the market place are apparently not ready to agree 
that anvthing needs to be done except to permit the market to adjust 

"Computed from Ciilifornia Dairy Indu-^^try Stati.'^tics for 19r)9, Special Bulletin 280, 

California Crop and Livestock Ueporting Service, Table 1, p. 7. See production 

rates chart appended. 
» California Lt'Ki.slature, Joint Committee on Asrriculture and Livestock Problems, 

Report on Fixing tiie Price of Fluid Milk in California, September 1, 1958, p. 3. 
» See footnote 1 above, 
♦/bn/.. Tables 21 and 22, p. 34. 
"See transcript, Committee Hearing, Fre.sno, California, June 29, 1960, p. 76 and 

pp. 89-90. Cf. tran.scrii)t. Committee Hearing, Modesto, California, May 10, 1960, 

p. 106 et seq. 
"Ibid., p. 77. 


Three basic factors seem to seriously affect the predicament of manu- 
facturing milk producers in California: (1) the excess of market milk, 
brought on (as suggested in other chapters of this report) by increasing 
production efficiencies and declining per capita consumption of milk 
and dairy products; (2) the economic squeeze of rising farm costs 
and declining farm prices; and (3) competition which must include 
the danger of low-cost dairy imports from other states, contractual 
arrangements which encourage producers to compete with each other, 
and merchandising practices. We need not dwell here on the problem 
of excess market milk being diverted from fluid use because of depressed 
consumption to manufactured use and the concomitant competition 
it forces on manufacturing milk ; such problem is discussed in Chapter 
3 in the section on contracts, guarantees and quotas. 

Per capita consumption of all milk and dairy products continues 
to show slight decline throughout the United States despite manifest 
population gains in most metropolitan areas and increased total con- 
sumption.'^ In California, population increased 3.6 percent in 1959 
while per capita consumption of fluid milk products declined an aver- 
age of 1.4 percent; total sales of Class 1 products between July, 1959 
and July, 1960 were off 0.7 percent while sales increased for concen- 
trated fluid milk 10.8 percent, fluid skim 6.8 percent, sour cream 14.4 
percent and other fluid cream 2.2 percent.'^ Total sales in Class 1 jumped 
3 percent from July, 1958 to July, 1960 in California but population 
increased an estimated 6 percent during the same two years while 
personal income continued to climb.^ Market milk available for manu- 
facturing purposes rose from 39.6 percent to 40.6 percent of all com- 
mercial milk production in the state in one year, July 1959 to July 
1960.1° While it is obvious that the consuming housewife is buying 
a greater variety of milk and dairy products for her family in larger 
proportions than ever before, her family's total use of milk has de- 
clined gradually. A partial answer for the decline in total family use 
of milk is the fact that a greater array of products, both durable and 
nondurable, are competing for the consumer dollar and real income 
is not keeping pace with higher wages and salaries because commodity 
prices are outstripping wages ; another way of saying it is that the 
cost-of-living is increasing, especially in the western United States. 
Another partial answer is that milk processors are providing a greater 
array of products, including concentrated fluid milk, filled milk, non- 
fat dry milk, imitation ice cream and ice milk, which obviously com- 
pete at generally lower prices with traditional dairy products. The 
consumer, alwa,ys careful of her dollar purchases, is more often than 
not deciding to buy the cheaper product. 

The economic squeeze throughout American agriculture is evident 
from the vast stockpiles of butter and grains in federal warehouses, 
subsidies and acreage allocations for many food and fiber crops and 

7 USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Crop Reporting Board, Fluid Milk and Cream 

Consumption in Selected Marketing Areas, 1956-58, .January 3, 1960. 

8 California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Dairy Information BuUetm, Vol. 

XVII, No. 7, October, 1960, p. 2. . . ^. c 

B Ibid., Table 11, p. 13. Population estimates from the Department of Finance. See 

chart and data appended. 
10 Ibid., p. 2. 


the declining' farm iH>])ulatioii ; siicli evidence has been thoron^dily dis- 
cussed and documented else\vhei-e." California has been least suscepti- 
ble to tlie scjueeze because jzreat a<2:ricultnral diversity results not only 
from scientific land utilization, lonj; production cycles and a hij^h de- 
gree of mechanization but also from skillful farm management. How- 
ever, the manifestation of an alarminp: situation for the manufactur- 
iujr milk producer is perha])s an indication that California ajrriculture 
may soon lose its favored jiosition. Ilitih and increasin<z' land values. 
Avith semi-arid farm land in the Centi-al \'alley sellinj; at a reported 
$825 an acre, mean even more planned utilization of laiul and water. 
Milk producers have had to increase their efficient use of land, water, 
feeds and livestock at ever faster rates to stay in business and still 
many manufacturing milk producers have quit or turned their land 
to raise cotton and srrain. Many such producers have increased their 
herd size at considerable cost and, still unable to make money, have 
turned ])asture into crop land so they can continue to produce milk. 
The average number of milk cows on California farms between l!).)!) 
and 1939 was ()()4,()()() and each cost $60.10 on the average; in 1908, 
there was a total of 943,000 milk cows worth an average $255 each on 
California farms.^- Yet the price of manufacturing milk has continued 
to fluctuate every two years from as much as $1.23 to as little as 9 
cents a hundredweight ; market milk prices, on the other hand, dropped 
$1.02 from 1952 to 1954 and have since increased slightly.^-" 

The cost-price farm squeeze is ai)parent in competition between 
areas within the state and between California milk producers and pro- 
ducers in other states. High-cost production in the metropolitan Los 
Angeles area has made it necessary for producers there to increase 
their total efficiency and production quality. Some processors have been 
forced to obtain (luantities of lower-cost market milk from the San 
Joaquin Valley where labor and feed costs are apt to be slightly 
cheaper and forced feeding of livestock is unnecessary. But high feed 
costs in areas of relatively cheap labor, in the northern San .Joa(juin 
for instance, cut into net margins, especially when coupled with low 
etjuities in and high interest on new mechanical e([uipment designed 
to foster greater efficiency. The marginal producer increases his volume 
and efficiency to diminish his costs per unit and thus hopes to stabilize 
or increase his income. However, in some areas of the Central Valley, 
greater efficiency has become prohibitively expensive and the marginal 
l)roducer is thus foi-ced to stabilize his out]mt at a point where his 
income must gradiuilly decliiu^ or eventually disai)pear. Labor costs in 
some midwestern states are either so low or non-existent that dairy 
l)roducts, particularly milkfat, can be imported and sold in California 
cheaper than it can be produced and sold here. One reliable witness 
estimated that 59,000,000 pounds, or 20 percent of in-state production, 

"See I'nited States Department of Agriculture ApricuUural Statistics for 1959 and 
preliminary reports from the U.S. Bureau of the Census for 1960. See also, for 
example, .lames G. Patton, The Case for Farmers, Washington: Public Affairs 
Press, 1959 ; 62 p. 

"California Annual Livestock Report, Summary for 1958, California Crop and 
Livestock Heporting Service, Tables 1 and 2, p. .">. 

"California Dairy Industry Statistics for 1959, California Crop and Livestock Re- 
porting Service, Tables 21 and 22, p. 34. See chart and data appended. 


of milkfat was imported in 1959. ^'^ Data regarding total dairy imports 
into California are not officially reported but reliable industry spokes- 
men have privately estimated that i)rocessors here import 37.6 percent 
of the total milkfat requirements in California merely because it is 
cheaper to buy and ship in some products. That does not necessarily 
mean that California is a deficit dairy state despite its large and grow- 
ing population ; it does mean, however, that California dairymen must 
face the peril of low-cost competition from areas of highly specialized 
dairy production. 

Merchandising practices b}' California dairy industry segments may 
be divided into two categories: (1) brand advertising and marketing 
by processors and distributors through normal trade outlets such as 
milk cartons, billboards, media space and time and point-of-sales; (2) 
institutional advertising and marketing by producers through coopera- 
tive educational and promotional programs. In the first instance, Bu- 
reau of Milk Stabilization officials estimate that $5| million was spent 
in California in calendar 1959 ; bureau personnel allocate 1^ percent 
of total sales to advertising in cost surveys. In the second instance, 
such organizations as the California Dairy Industry Advisory board, 
the American Dairy Association of California and six local milk coun- 
cils spent an estimated total of $1,082,292 in 1959. Thus, the total 
advertising and promotional campaigns of all segments of California's 
dairy industry cost roughly $6,582,292 last year. With a population 
of 15,280,000 on July 1, 1959, that is only 43 cents spent per capita 
by the entire dairy industry during the whole year and farm earnings 
from dairy products alone were an average $24.60 from each Cali- 
fornian in the same period. ^^ That seems an infinitesimal investment 
for advertising and a relatively large return for California's second 
largest industry whose total earnings, at farm and store, reached an 
estimated $1 billion last year.^^ Albeit that these figures may grossly 
overstate the case, they are nonetheless an indication of what is being 
done in milk merchandizing. One may ask, is it enough? 

In comi^arison, advertising for distilled spirits, not including beer 
and wine, in California (with about 12 percent of national consump- 
tion) amounted to an estimated $20,677,440, or $1.35 per capita, in 
1959. On the other hand, nonbrand advertising for cling peaches, 
another perishable agricultural commodity like milk, amounted to 
$1,582,992, or 10.3 cents per capita, in California in fiscal 1959-60.i6-s 
Of course, total farm earnings for cling peaches are considerably less 
than similar earnings for milk in the state. 

There is no M^ay to estimate the total damage to dairy sales caused 
by the unfortunate, and largely unfounded, publicity about cholesterol 
in milkfat and injurious wax from milk containers. Undoubtely, such 
publicity has been a factor in the decline of per capita consumption 
of milk; it has been a factor, moreover, of competition in the pursuit 

u See transcript, Committee hearing, Fresno, California, June 29, 1960, p. 4. 

1^ Computed from population and dairy farm earnings as reported In California Dairy- 
Industry Statistics for 1959 and cited previously. 

18 Computed from normal wholesale and resale markups of farm cash receipts for 
milk and dairy products as cited previously. 

19-5 Distilled spirits advertising amount from Printer's Ink, Sept. 9, 1960, computed m 
conjunction with national consumption figures from the Liquor Handbook for 1^60 
published by Gavln-Jobson, Inc., New York ; cling peach advertising amount from 
the Division of Marketing, California Department of Agriculture. 


for the consumer dollar. Sales of milk substitutes and milk imitations 
have boomed in the past several months. To offset such publicity, the 
American Dairy Association has inaugurated and sponsored a series of 
research projects (seven in 1959 alone) to determine if cholesterol is 
detrimental to health as claimed by many doctors; preliminary in- 
vestigations indicate that it is not. However, a vigorous educational 
campaign by the entire Ameri«an dairy industry is apparently neces- 
sary. In addition, and until such findings are available for an educa- 
tional campaign, an even more vigorous advertising and promitional 
effort appears nece.s.sary if milk is to regain its favor in the diet of 
Californians. The California Consumer Counsel recently told a South- 
ern California group of producers that consumers needed and wanted 
to know about other healthful components of milk such as protein and 
carbohydrates to stimulate their of milk and dairy products. 
Some industry spokesmen have indicated privately that they believe 
the Milk Control Act has inhibited imaginative and vigorous merchan- 
dising by the California dairy industry; some have even intimated 
that, from a merchandising standpoint, the Legislature might do well 
to repeal the Desmond resale provisions and thus encourage better sales- 
mau.ship in an unprotected market. 

In sum. the problem of manufacturing milk producers in California 
is only one significant factor in the complex economic problems facing 
agriculture in general and the dairy industry in particular. Perhaps 
the most salient feature of that larger problem is how production may 
be accommodated to con.sumption or. put another way. how to best 
adjust supply and demand. It appears clear that, in addition to other 
kinds of action, more vigorous merchandising is desirable but even 
that, of it.self, may not be enough to a.ssure and maintain future stability 
in a growing economy beset with an increasing array of products seek- 
ing markets ever more competitively. 


Senate Bill 1167 (Cobey — 1959) would have established a stabiliza- 
tion and marketing law for manufacturing milk producers similar to 
the one established for market milk producers by passage of the Young 
Act 25 years ago ; it would have permitted the establishment of market- 
ing areas and equalization pools, required minimum prices to producers 
based on national market prices and state market fluctuations for manu- 
facturing milk and required public hearings and cost surveys to estab- 
lish such minimum prices in the various marketing areas. It was spon- 
sored by the "Western Dairymen's As.sociation. It was heard twice 
before the A.s.sembly Committee on Livestock and Dairies during the 
1959 General Ses.sion and refused pas-sage both times. It has been heard 
before this committee once since June 19, 1959. 


The crucial point at issue between manufacturing milk producers and 
distributors is whether a marketing law for such milk will foreclose 
California manufactured dairy products from local markets. The 


principal arguments heard before this committee may be summarized 
as follows : 

1. Producer spokesmen contend that such a marketing law would 
guarantee an adequate supply of manufactured dairy products at rea- 
sonably uniform and stable prices to consumers. Distributor representa- 
tives contend that it would raise the consumer prices on such products 
because there are no resale pricing provisions in the proposal. 

2. Producer spokesmen contend that such a law would help eliminate 
competition between surplus market milk and manufacturing milk and 
discourage unfair trade practices. ^'^ Distributor representatives rejoin 
that increases in the in-state raw product price would encourage addi- 
tional purchases of out-of-state supplies to the detriment of California 
producers. They add that price-tixing standards in the proposal are 
too general ; that is, one of the present Milk Control Act pricing stand- 
ards is the market relationship between market milk and manufactur- 
ing milk prices and distributors contend that if the Director of Agri- 
culture fixes the price of manufacturing milk too, it will eliminate that 
standard in the present ]\Iilk Control Act as being unreasonable. 

3. Producer spokesmen contend that such a law is necessary to pre- 
serve and protect the entire California dairy industry. Distributor rep- 
resentatives rejoin that there are no legal or constitutional precedents 
for a marketing law for manufacturing milk producers. 

Subsidiary contentions by producer spokesmen include (1) such a 
law would give producers the right to negotiate for better prices; (2) 
it would equalize all milk prices at all levels and thus prevent inequities 
among producers; (8) it would prevent distributors from subsidizing 
their fluid markets with manufactured products; (4) without such a 
law, some Central Valley manufacturing milk producers might seek 
economic protection under a Federal pricing order; and (5) the con- 
suming public is entitled to an assured supply of high-quality dairy 
products. Distributor representatives answer (1) producers exercise the 
right to negotiate for prices in an uncontrolled economy without legal 
sanctions; (2) resale prices on all milk and dairy products in Cali- 
fornia would increase; (4) distributors are concerned with increasing 
total sales volume and not necessarily with particular product sales; 
and (5) the California consuming public is already getting top-quality 
dairy products at prices lower than national averages. 

As noted in the next chapter, market milk producers are interested 
in increasing their "blend" price. That is, the income of every market 
milk producer is a combination of prices returned from the products 
made from his production as used in the classifications outlined earlier 
in this chapter. Thus, the lower the classified use, the lower the cora- 

1" See transcript, Committee hearing, Fresno, California, June 29, 1960, pp. 21-23, 
where a witness describes two such practices as (1) "Pacific Tel and Tel" 
marketing whereby milk buyers pre-set the raw product price in collusion by 
telephone before making purchases; and (2) "si3lit-the-pie" whereby producers 
are assigned to ship to specific processors by geographical areas. At pp. 49-50, an 
expert witness explains "split-the-pie" as a logical means to avoid duplicated 
milk collection routes by tank trucks. 


bined return or "blend" to the producer. A simple and graphic way 
to illustrate this point might be: 

Total Production 

Class 1 
Hiii<l products 
(liottlc inilU 
and fifaiii ) 

Class 1' 

fluid by-products 
(ice croani, colta^e 
chocso, etc. 1 


manufactured products 
( hutter. hard cheese, 
skim aiul dry miliv ) 

licst niiirii 

iX'uti] return 
••I'.lcnd' r.-i.-.. 

fair to iioor return 

Some market milk producers apparently support this proposal Avith- 
out reservation as a means to increase their "blend" price because they 
believe it would eliminate competition between their surplus produc- 
tion and manufacturino- milk.'*^ The principal proponent of this pro- 
posal said recently tliat the average Grade A "blend" price in the 
northern San Joaquin Valley is $3.74 a hundredweight, or about $1 
below the official estimates for tlie state average Grade A "blend." ^* 
Other .such producers decline to support it because they apparently 
believe the problem will be naturally alleviated or eliminated within 
10 years.-" Still other market milk producers have reserved their judg- 
ment in the belief that current industry studies of milk purcliase con- 
tracts will disclose a more amenable solution such as an industry-wide 
agreement to standardize contractual terms.-^ 

A Department of Agriculture spokesman has said that such a law is 
feasible and can be administered without greatly increasing the size 
and operating costs of the Bureau of Milk Stabilization.-- Another said 
bureau surveys indicated that 2 percent of total market milk produc- 
tion is purchased and handled as manufacturing milk and that such 
milk amounts to 10 percent of all surplus market milk produced in the 
.state; he added that the proposed legislation embodied in S. B. 1167 
would effectively control such milk purchases through price regula- 

It is obvious that the production sector of California's dairj' industry 
has been severely disrupted by continued high production at levels 
which, in the main, were required by emergency conditions long since 
past but which continue largely because of competitive factors. Further- 
more, it is obvious that producers of both market and manufacturing 
milk are vitally if not unanimously concerned with finding solutions 
to the problem of over-production. One possible answer may result 
from the studies by joint producer-distributor groups regarding con- 
tracts; .such studies are discussed and sunnnarized in the following 
chapter. Another i)ossible answer may result from the pa.ssage of a bill 
similar to the one here discussed; Senator Cobey has said he intends to 
introduce such a bill at the 1961 General Session. A third possible 
solution may obtain from a vote by San Joaquin Valley manufacturing 
milk producers at some future date to secure a Federal pricing order 

"See transcript, Committee hearing, Fresno, California, June 2'i, 1960, pp. 5-6 and 

pp. 7.")-71i. 
"Jo.seph F. r3ranco, State President, Western Dairymen's Association, at the 24th 

annual convention of the Krouj) at Merced, California on October 17, 1960. 
» See transcript, Committee hearinK. Fresno, California, June 29, 1960, p. 65. 
" /ok/., p. 24. 
2" Ibul., lip. 89-93. 
"Ibid., pp. 94-95. See chart and data appended. 


or, as an alternative, a vote to further consolidate Grade A marketing 
areas in that region ; one such consolidation was recently approved by 
market milk producers in Kings and Tulare counties.-^ Still another 
possible answer may result from concerted efforts by milk purchasers 
to encourage production cut-backs as was reportedly done in the lower 
San Joaquin Valley recently.-^ However, each of these alternatives re- 
quires a degree of unanimity among producers as w'ell as cooperation 
between producers and distributors which may not be easily obtainable 
in an industry as diverse, complex and competitive as California dairy- 
ing. Therefore, it may be desirable to encourage increasingly significant 
efforts in brand and institutional advertising by all industry segments. 
One obvious and desirable objective would be to educate consumers to 
use ■milk and dairy products in greater quantities and in a variety of 
new ways; another equally obvious and desirable objective would be to 
stimulate total consumer sales of milk and dairy products and thus 
expand markets to meet present and future production levels. 

In sum, a number of alternative but partial solutions to the problem 
of over-production and its concomitant complexities, including the 
plight of manufacturing milk producers, are available. Some may re- 
quire legislation and others may be attained through coordinated in- 
dustry planning and effort in the Dairy Industry Advisory Board and 
the six regional or local milk councils. On the whole, however, it ap- 
pears that only through a united and cooperative effort can California's 
milk industry maintain the degree of stabilitj^ and growth necessary 
to ensure the state's rapidly expanding population its future dairy 
supply. Present disruptions, as illustrated by the problem in manufac- 
turing milk, Avill continue to plague and jeopardize orderly milk mar- 
keting in California unless substantial efforts by industry are Jiiade 

2^ Press release, California Department of AgricuUure, August 17, 1960. 

'■^ Martin H. Blank told the recent annual convention of the Western Dairymen's 
Association in Merced that certain distributors had succeeded in persuading 
some Valley producers to cut production as much as 6 percent in the previous 
four months. 


(S.B. 1442, Donnelly-1959) 

Contractual an-an^rtniients between milk producers and milk distribu- 
tors are critically important in the marketing of milk and dairy prod- 
ucts for they establish the terms by which milk is produced, processed 
and sold. Milk purchase contracts vary widely througliout the state in 
form, guarantees and language dependent upon several factors which 
include: (1) composition of milk supplied, (2) uses to which it is put, 
(3) distance to resale markets, (4) production efficiencies, (5) distribu- 
tive methods and (6) traditional seller-buyer relations. 

Contracts for the purchase of Grade A milk have become increasingly 
complex as supply and demand patterns have changed to conform with 
technological advances, population growth and consumer buying habits. 
Normally, Grade A milk purchase contracts include provisions for 
usage, assigning certain proportions of volume to ditfereut kinds of 
fluid and finished dairy products. For example: 

Total Production 
(gallonaKP or poiuuls of milk components) 

C'lnss 1 Kimi'iiiitoo ('hiss 2 and 


The Class 1 guarantee is about 65 percent, Class 2 and 3 usage is 
about 22 percent and legally-required standby is about 13 percent of 
total production and the contract is legitimately called a "sixty-five per- 
cent" contract. However, there is another "sixty-five percent" contract : 

>tal Production 

Contract Amount 

Excess 1 guarantoo 

Class 2 and 3 nsajre 


In this example the Class 1 guarantee is about Oo ])orcent of the contract 
amount l)ut only about 30 percent of total production ; tlie total contract 
amount is only about 75 percent of total production. 

Technological advances, such as more modern equipment and manage- 
ment and scientific breeding and feeding programs, have greatly in- 
creased milk production.^ Population growth in California has been 
great, especially in urban areas, and consumer buying habits have be- 
come more sophisticated.- One of the obvious causes for milk purchase 

' Since Ut35, the number of cows milked has increased by 264,000, the total pro- 
duction of milk bus increased by 3,S2;{,0U0 pouiid.s and tlie average production per 
cow has Increased 2, .330 pounds. California Crop and Livestock Keporting Service, 
Dairy Information Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 2, May HtGO, p. 20. 

* More products compete for the consumer dollar and consumers generally are highly 
selective In their purchases as every trade publication is quick to point out. 

( 32 ) 


contracts as illustrated in the second example is the disparity between 
increasing milk production and declining per capita consumption of 
milk and milk products; although Californians are buying more dairy 
foods than ever before, they are not consuming as much milk per person 
and total demand has not increased as rapidly as supply. Consequently, 
there is an excess of high-quality milk.^ 

Another factor in the over-supply of high-qualit,v milk distinctly re- 
lated to contractual arrangements is the conversion of many Grade B 
herds to Grade A production in the San Joaquin YaWey^ Many Grade 
B producers are apparently induced to convert their production by a 
desire for greater financial security. The estimated cost of Grade B milk 
production is about $1 more than the market price according to reliable 
witnesses.^ As mentioned previously, the problem of the dairy farmer's 
cost-price squeeze is accentuated because the excess Grade A production 
is being diverted to manufacturing usages in Classes 2 and 8 where it 
competes directly with Grade B milk. 

The proposal by Senator Donnelly (S.B. 1442) in 1959 was sponsored 
by California Dairymen, Inc. of which Herman Grabow, Escalon, is 
president. If approved, it would have instituted a uniform contract 
form for all Grade A milk purchase contracts in the state with minimum 
Class 1 guarantees of 80 percent for deliveries to city plants and 70 
percent for deliveries to country plants. 

The principal proponent said the bill would outlaw "contract favori- 
tism" but other producer representatives suggested it be given further 
study. Proponent argued that minimum guarantees could vary accord- 
ing to distribution needs in the several marketing areas if each producer 
in such areas were guaranteed a share of the market. He implied such 
guarantees would, in effect, establish producer quotas in market-wide 
equalization pools. The principal opponent said if high guarantees were 
mandatory, distributors would have to lower contract amounts or cancel 
some contracts entirely. He argued that usage, rather than guarantee, is 
the basis for contract payment. And lie implied that distributors would 
refuse to assign quotas to individual })roducers and then guarantee pay- 
ment on minimum quotas. 

Witnesses at one hearing said production quotas for milk are neces- 
sary or will be eventually demanded in order to alleviate or rectify 
preferential producer treatment by some distributors.^ Complaints 
about contract inequities which force producers to compete with one 
another have been voiced at nearly all Committee hearings. However, 
Section 4296 of the Agricultural Code specifically prohibits production 

(S.B. 890, Donnelly-1959) 

Improving product quality by raising the quality standards for prod- 
ucts has traditionally been a means to raise the product price and thus 
increase the income of the producer provided, of course, per unit costs 
remained relatively stable or increased only slightly. 

" An expert in the Bureau of Milk Stabilization has estimated that currently as 
much as 25 percent of total Grade A production is being diverted to manufactur- 
ing usages. 

* See transcript, Committee hearing, Modesto, California, May 10, 1960. 

6 Ibid. 

'See transcript, Committee hearing, Modesto, California, May 10, 1960, pp. 54-60. 


Greatly increased consumer demand for fluid milk by-products such 
as ice cream, cottage cheese, sour cream and yogurt and the increased 
supply oi' fluid milk reserves have resulted in diversion of such reserves 
to those high-recovery products. However, as supply outstripped de- 
mand, more and more fluid milk has found its way into lower recovery 
products such as hard cheese, non-fat milk, condensed and evaporated 
canned milk, diy skim and cultured buttermilk. For instance, 88.7 per- 
cent of the milkfat derived from fluid whole milk was used for Class 1 
processing and buttermilk in ]f)5G; 78.7 percent of such milkfat was 
u.sed for the same purposes in 1959." Put another way, 10 percent of the 
available Grade A milkfat has been diverted to nonbottled, lower recov- 
ery products. 

Tiiree factors have apparently encouraged processors to divert fluid 
milk reserves to the manufacture of cultured buttermilk: (1) the severe 
decline in the butter market in the past ten j^eavs coupled with the in- 
creasing i)opularity of buttermilk, especiall}^ during sunuuer months; 
(2) substantial ditt'erences in price for butter, with federal supports, 
and for other higher cost milk products Avhich return a higher propor- 
tion of income to the processor; and (3) the surfeit of high quality fluid 
milk in competition with Grade B milk normally used for butter manu- 

Cidtured buttermilk, it should be noted, is manufactured from milk 
comi)unents and usually contains from 1 percent to 2 percent milkfat 
whereas buttermilk is a natural by-product of butter manufacture 
nornudly cOJitaining about the same small proportion of milkfat. Cul- 
tured buttermilk is so called because additional bacteria are introduced 
to change the chemical composition of fatty acids as is naturally accom- 
plished in butter processing. 

"Bleiul i^rice, " as previously noted, is the income of producers 
compounded from the sale of all the various milk products derived 
from their milk. Most Grade A producers are eager to increase the price 
of all uncontrolled products, such as buttermilk, Jiornuilly made from 
(irade B milk but now manufactured from Grade A components, and 
thus increase the amount of their "blend price." Moreover, producers 
are interested in obtaining an equitable return for their Grade A milk 
used for high recovery products. For instance, buttermilk made from 
Grade Ji milk, selling at $;].25 a hundredweight, might retail for 19 
cents a (puirt but cultured buttermilk, made from (Jrade A milk, selling 
at .$r).2.'3 a hundredweight Tor Class 1 usage, might retail for the same 
price in Class H usaj^e, thus reducing the "blend" to the producer. If a 
large i)roportion of his daily volume were going into such usage, his 
"blend" would be thus severely reduced. Upgrading that portion of 
his Grade A volume used for buttermilk to Class ] usage would obvi- 
ously increase his "blend" and thus raise his income. 

The proposal by Seiuitor Donnelly (S. B. 890) in 1959 was spon- 
sored by the California Milk Producers' Federation, an organization 
of Northern California (irade A milk i)ro(lucer groups. If approved, 
it would have reciuired the use of market ( (irade A) milk in the man- 
ufacture of cultured buttermilk and the Bureau of Milk Stabilization 
to set mininnnn resale prices on the product as fluid milk. 

' FlKure.s derived from data publi.shed in several recent Dairy Information Bulletins 
by the California Crop and Livestock Ileportiny Service. 


Principal proponent said cnltnred buttermilk is essentially a fluid 
product in Class 1 usage and ought to return a Class 1 price to pro- 
ducers. He argued that an increased return to producers would not 
necessarily increase the resale price to consumers because, he said, dis- 
tributors could absorb the cost in their net margins. He implied that 
distributors' net margins on cultured bnttermilk were too high. Two 
representatives of other producer groups testified similarly but another 
said the bill would cause Grade B producers additional harm by 
further reducing their markets and another said several questions 
about the bill 's probable effects needed to be answered before his group 
endorsed it. Principal opponent said there was no public health reason 
to make cultured buttermilk from Grade A milk. He argued that the 
bill would require distributors to increase their standby reserves at 
added costs and increased prices would depress the consumer demand. 
Another opponent emphasized the lack of evidence regarding a public 
health need for such upgrading. 

One witness said the price for buttermilk varied from 6^ cents a 
quart at commissaries on military bases to 20^ cents a quart at some 
civilian markets.® He thus implied a substantial cost differential exists. 
It is possible that administrative action could be taken to allow a higher 
return to producers for those portions of production nsed for high 
recovery by-products such as was taken to establish a 20-cent a hun- 
dredweight differential on bulk shipments in tanks instead of cans. 
Such action conld, in effect, establish a sub-classification in Class 2 with 
concomitant higher "blends" to producers without snbstantial reduc- 
tion in distributor net margins. 

(A.B. 2412, Garrigus-1 959) 

Country plants have traditionally served as assembly and transship- 
ment points for fluid milk between remote farm and city market. In 
addition, many have been useful as production units for manufactured 
by-products. For example, one plant may assemble fluid whole milk 
into bulk lots for carload shipment to a city plant for processing; 
another may separate milkfat from fluid whole milk, ship the milkfat 
to a city plant for blending into fluid products and keep the skim for 
drying, butter or cottage cheese manufacture. 

Until about a decade ago, most dairy farmers shipped their milk in 
cans and some of them still do. Country plants to handle such ship- 
ments are necessary in order to avoid costly double hauling of the cans 
from farm to dairy and return. However, the recent conversion of 
many milk producers from cans to refrigerated farm holding tanks 
and of many milk distributors to refrigerated tank trucks has consid- 
erably lessened the importance of this country plant function. In the 
southern San Joaquin Valley, for instance, it is possible to ship di- 
rectly from farm to city by using modern refrigeration equipment. It 
has been estimated that 85 percent of San Joaquin Valley Grade A 
milk is thus handled directly.^ 

^ See transcript, Committee liearing, Fresno, California, June 29, 1960, p. 5. 
^ See transcript, Committee hearing, Fresno, California, June 28, 1960, p. 13. 


Under Section 42;}1 of tlie Agricultural ("ode, the ]>ureau of Milk 
Stabilization is re(iuired to deduct "plant and transportation service" 
charges from Grade A producer receijjts. I'ntil two years ago, such 
deductions were 27 cents a hundredweight. Because many producers 
had invested in refrigerated holding tanks to facilitate bulk shipment 
and had, tliereby, lowered costs, some Valley producers requested a 
reduction in the handling assessment for bulk shipments. The bureau 
held a series of heai'ings and prounilgated a new deduction schedule 
which set a maximum charge of 15 cents a huiulredweight for bulk 
shipments and 26 cents a liundredweight for can shipments. 

There are, according to bureau figures, 22 country plants operating 
in the San Joaquin Valley, the traditional production area most remote 
from Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay area markets. The chief of 
the bureau estimates that only three handle can shipments in any 

The proposal by Assemblyman Garrigus (A. B. 2412) in 1959 was 
sponsored by Allied Dairymen. Inc., formerly the Central Valley Milk 
Marketing Association. Noel Diamond of Tulare is general manager. 
If approved, it would have eliminated the 15 cents a hundredweight 
deduction for Grade A bulk shi]nnents in tanks. 

l^rincipal proponents said service charges on bulk milk handled at 
country ])lants for transshipment should be added to the consumer 
price or absorbed in distributor gross margins. They argued that such 
costs are distributor plant costs and not logically attributable to the 
producer. One witness said that he knew one distributor who trans- 
ferred bulk milk from truck to plant and back to truck only to assess 
the charge against producers.^*^ Another said he would have to pay 
$28H a month for such services which he did not need if he were not 
shi])ping directly to city plant." Another producer group representa- 
tive said country plants were necessary; another said some distant 
l)rodncers might be squeezed out of remote markets if countr}' plants 
were forced to close; still another said changes in allocating costs should 
be done administratively. 

Principal opponents said the bureau had studied country plant 
operations and found them a necessary part of the milk marketing 
apparatus with necessary costs and if such costs had to be absorbed, 
some country plants w'ould eitlier lose money or shut doM'u and cause 
the loss of market to some producers. They aj'gued the bureau had sufifi- 
cieut authority to adjust charges to conform with marketing i)ractices. 

One expert witness said if handling costs were passed along to con- 
sumers it would put country plant operators at a competitive disad- 
vantage and disrupt marketing. He admitted that country plant serv- 
ice charges should be allocated equally to producers and distributors 
but he could see no practical way to do it. Another expert said the 
bureau's 1958 survey showed service costs ranging from 8.44 cents to 
18.5 cents a hundredweight while distributor exhibits submitted at 
hearings showed such costs to range from 20.63 cents to 32.79 cents a 
hundredweight. '■- 

"See tran.scrlpt, Committee hearing, Fresno, California, June 28, 1960, p. 9. 

" Ibid., p. 20. 

'•See transcript, committee hearing, Fresno, California, June 2S, 1960, p. 02. 


It is obvious that the San Joaquin Valley is, and has long" been, the 
milk production reserve for both major metropolitan areas of the state. 
But it is also apparent that modern technology, particularly in han- 
dling, has changed the composition of and requirements for Valley 
production drastically in the past few years; iiowadays fluid milk can 
move into either Los Angeles or San Francisco from anywhere between 
Bakersfield and Redding. Additionally, it is apparent that A. B. 2412 
was intended as a means to increase the "blend" to some Valley pro- 
ducers who, in general, need relief, as previously noted, from the cost- 
price squeeze felt most acutely by the single-unit marginal farmer. 

However, additional factors might be considered in order to resolve 
this particular country plant problem to the satisfaction of both pro- 
ducers and distributors. These might include (1) the volume of Grade 
A milk still being shipped in cans in the San Joaquin-Sacramento 
Valleys; (2) the number and location of country plants most needed 
for: (a) marketing and (b) manufacturing; and (3) the periods of 
most vital need for such plants. 

(A.C.R. 34, Biddick-1960) 

Farmers have always borne the cost of transporting their produce 
from farm to market but modern technology and management practices, 
both on the farm and in the market, have compounded to complicate 
a once-simple phase of marketing. Constant adjustments appear neces- 
sary to assure economic equality and just treatment. 

Innovations in milk handling methods on the farm, particularly the 
conversion from cans to bulk holding tanks, have facilitated the assem- 
bly, processing and distribution of both Grade A and Grade B milk. 
Such devices as automatic feeders, semiautomatic milk houses, direct 
pipelines from milking machines to holding tank are important recent 
innovations which, in addition to modern breeding and feeding tech- 
niques, have resulted in greater efficiencies and higher production. 
But such innovations require capital outlay and increase the farmer's 
investment per gallon of production. He is naturally interested in 
obtaining a return on his investment which may or may not have been 
financed, at least in part, by the buyer of his product who is naturally 
interested in increasing efficiency. 

Surpluses of Grade A milk since 1957 have caused more and more of 
such milk to be diverted from fluid to manufacturing uses (see footnote 
3) in Classes 2 and 3. Prices for Class 3, sometimes called the "last re- 
covery ' ' class, are related specifically to the uncontrolled price of Grade 
B or manufacturing milk, f.o.b. ranch, which is set competitively 
by the buyer although the Federal government has set a price floor 
with supports for butter and fluid manufacturing milk. Presumably, 
Class 2 has yielded a higher return than Class 3 to producers because, 
by legal defiiiitions of the Desmond Act (Sections 4226-28, Agricultural 
Code), it is used for high recovery by-products of fluid milk. Retail 
prices for such products are not controlled as they are for Class 1 
fluid, bottled products. 


However, iu 1958 some distributors bep:an paying a 25 cents a hun- 
drechveifrht bonus for Grade B milk handU'd in bulk. That is. Grade B 
producers -who invested in farm holdin<» tanks received 25 cents more 
a hundredweifrbt than did such producers who continued to ship iu 
cans. Naturally encourajred to make such an investment, many Grade 
B producers did so to take advantage of the differential ; moreover, 
it has been alleged that some distributors completely financed conver- 
sions for many farmers. One obvious effect of these conversions was to 
further encourage com]>etitiou between mounting surpluses of Grade 
A milk and available (Jrade B milk to the detriment of the producers 
of both. Subsequently, in the spring of 1959, some Grade A ]n-oducers 
in the San Joaquin Valley requested the Bureau of Milk Stabilization 
to adjust transportation charges for Grade A milk handled in bulk 
and used for manufacturing purposes. The bureau held a series of 
hearings and, in July, l!)59, issued marketing orders iu the Stanislaus. 
San Joaquin and Merced-^Iadera marketing areas requiring distribu- 
tors to pay 20 cents a hundredweight more than the Class 3 price for 
all Grade A milk handled in bulk and used for Class 2. ]\Iost dis- 
tributors complied with the new orders but two partially refused and, 
according to reliable witnesses, reclassified over-contract milk as Grade 
B and paid for it at the prevailing manufacturing milk price. 

A remedy was sought in the form of the proposal by Assemblyman 
Biddick (A. C. R. 34) in 1960. It was sponsored by the California" ]\rilk 
Producers' Federation and one of its large affiliated organizations. If 
approved, it would have required the Bureau of Milk Stabilization to 
"vigorously enforce"' the marketing orders governing such purchases 
of Grade A milk used in Class 2. 

Principal proponents said a higher return on Class 2 by-products was 
necessarj'' iu a market where competition among producers had been 
encouraged by financing of bulk handling tanks and conversion of 
Grade B producers to Grade A production. They said there should be 
no inducement for producers to output over required standby 
reserves and another said the 20-cent ditferential was necessary to "blend" payments in the face of rising costs and added in- 
vestments. They argued that the bureau lacked aggressiveness in en- 
forcing the marketing orders and they would support an increase in the 
service a.s.sessment (to the legal limit of .2 cent per pound milkfat) if 
additional bureau personnel were nectvssary to enforce the orders. 

One producer said all dairymen should be treated equally and an- 
other said distributors were only doing to producers what they, in turn, 
would do to distributors if they could. 

Principal opponents said "the basic problem arises because pro- 
ducers want to grow faster than consumers will absorb the supply on 
a price basis satisfactory to producers." They said the two offending 
distributors had misunderstood the order but were willing to comply 
with its i)rovisions. 

A spokesnuin for the Department of Agriculture said a suit was 
being prepared by the State Attorney General to recover retroactive 
payments of the 20-cent differential from the two alleged offenders. 


Subsequent to the Committee hearing, the Director of Agriculture 
aimouneed that the pending suit had been settled Avhen the two com- 
panies made partial settlements totaling $28,000.^^ 

The solution of this particular problem without further legislation 
is gratifying but it is obvious that the underlying causes will continue 
indefiiiitely. Those causes concern the entire dairy industry — producer, 
distributor, consumer — and include these three apparently related fac- 
tors: (1) increasing surpluses of Grade A milk resulting from (a) more 
efficient production methods and (b) continued conversion of Grade B 
producers to Grade A production; (2) declining per capita consump- 
tion of dairy products resulting from (a) more sophisticated consumer 
buying habits and (b) great competition for the consumer dollar from 
producers of all other consumer good and services; (3) the disparity 
between farm costs and farm prices resulting, at least in part, from 
(a) international monetary inflation and (b) domestic over-production. 
Other factors, such as statutory law, administrative practices, eco- 
nomic sanctions and societal changes, undoubtedly impinge on the 
causes which from time to time disrupt milk marketing in California. 


TVilliam E. AYarue was appointed Director of Agriculture effective 
January 1, 1960 and, according to his public statements, became imme- 
diately aware of the increasingly complex problem facing the California 
dairy industry. At the request of Governor Edmund G. Brown, the fol- 
lowing April he began to do something about it with the appointment of 
the first of four industry committees. The fiv^t group was composed of 
11 Grade A producers from all parts of the state; their first meeting 
was April 26 and to the date of this writing they have met eight times. 
In late May a 11-mau Grade B committee was appointed ; they first met 
on June 22 and to date have met six times. In mid-June a committee 
composed of 16 representatives of processors and distributors was ap- 
pointed ; their first meeting Avas June 30 and they have met five times 
since. ^^ In early November a committee composed of 10 representatives 
of manufacturing milk processors and distributors was appointed; to 
this writing they have held one meeting. 

Assistant Director AYilliam Kuhrt acts as chairman of all four 
committees and has been influential in directing the discussion toward 
practical, positive ends. For instance, the Grade A committee appointed 
a subcommittee to list and discuss principles which should govern 
seller-buyer relationships; coincidentally a group of producers, repre- 
sented by the California Farm Bureau Federation, met with a group 
of distributors, represented by the Dairy Institute of California, to 
discuss similar issues. These separate diseussious have resulted in the 
appointment of a joint producer-distributor subcommittee composed 
of seven distributor, four Grade A and three Grade B producer repre- 
sentatives to discuss and settle differences in principle. One probably 
and singularly important result may be the revision and standardiza- 
tion of milk pttrchase contracts in California. 

"'3 Department of Agriculture press release, dated July 29, 1960. 
^* A list of the study committees' members is appended. 


All four stmly committees have, to a large extent, been most inter- 
ested in two problems: (1) how to control and -what to do with the 
Grade A snrjilns and, secondarily, how to improve the economic posi- 
tion of Grade B producers; and (2) how to improve administration 
of the Milk Control Act. 

As indicated, the Grade A producers committee has spent considera- 
ble time and effort in attempt inj; to find a solution to the Grade A 
surplus ]n'oblem in contractual revision and standardization. ^lem- 
bers ap:reed early in their discussions that, in larjje measure, the sur- 
plus has been caused by forced over-production resulting: from various 
kinds of contractual provisions and practices. They requested and ob- 
tained a bureau stiuly of variations in Class 1 gruarantees and usajre 
which iiulicated apinirent i)referential treatment of producers in all 
areas of the State.*"' Then the subcommittee considered certain con- 
tractual princii)les and prepared a samjile contract which was pre- 
sented at a joint nieelinp: of all three committees October 6 in Sacra- 
mento. jMembers of the processor-distributor committee also presented 
a summary of their study of contracts at the same meetinpr and a joint 
subcommittee was appointed to discuss the principal differences and 
prepare a list of common ])rinciples upon Avhich producers and dis- 
tributors could nnitually agree; that subcommitte met for the first time 
October 24 in Sacramento.^*"' 

The (irade B producers committee has given considerable attention 
to finding means to solve their economic plight. In doing so, they have 
received bureau statistical analyses and discussed legal and extra-legal 
remedies, especially Grade A contractual arrangements, cooperative 
marketing, federal pricing orders and Senate Bill 1167 (Cobey — 1959) 
which was reported in a previous chapter of this report. The commit- 
tee has ap]iarently assumed that at least ]iart of the economic difficulties 
affecting Grade B producers will be alleviated by revision and standard- 
ization of (irade A contracts. Some meml)ers apparently believe more 
aggressive cooperative marketing would help ease the disparity between 
casts and ])rices. It is apparent, however, that some of them would 
support the introduction of a federal marketing order, with fixed pro- 
ducer prices and quotas in area pools, for the Central Valley or por- 
tions thereof in case legislation for a Grade B marketing law is de- 
feated in the 19G1 Genei-al Session. It should be clearly stated again 
that many (trade B pi'oducers, judging from study connnittee meetings 
and testimony before this committee, obviousl}- believe they have been 
discriminatecl against both legally, without a marketing law similar 
to the Milk Control Act, and economically, with induced over-produc- 
tion of Grade A milk which competes directly with their product. 

The processors-distributors connnittee has studied the Grade A sur- 
plus problem, particularly as it affct-ts marketing, milk depots and 
plant docks, milk .sales on bid to public agencies and administration of 

(1) to 100 piivi'nt (2fi>. 
'• A .siimniary f>f salient differences between these two proposal.s Is appended. 


the Milk Control Act. As mentioned above, Dairy Institute representa- 
tives met with Farm Bureau representatives to discuss producer-dis- 
tributor relations ; although such meetings were held without the 
express approval of the study committee it quickly acceded to the 
findings of those meetings and adopted the principles as reflecting the 
thinking of the committee majority. In regard to milk sales to military 
bases, Department of Agriculture spokesmen explained the controversy 
involved sales on bids below minimum price levels established by Bu- 
reau of Milk Stabilization marketing orders. They said several suits 
were pending and, upon the advice of the State Attorney General, 
had determined that the State has jurisdiction over such sales con- 
tracts; in a letter to distributors, dated September 14, 1960, the bu- 
reau chief said sales at Castle Air Force Base, Merced County, were 
being made at prevailing minimum wholesale prices. (It has been esti- 
mated that 70 percent of all commissary sales are for oif-base consump- 
tion.) In San Diego County, Allied Dairymen, Inc. lost and have ap- 
pealed their suit. The state courts have upheld the Director of Agricul- 
ture in setting state minimum wholesale prices on such bid sales but on 
November 30, 1960, the Federal District Court in San Francisco en- 
joined the state from doing so. The State Attorney General has been 
asked to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In jeopardy, of 
course, is market stability which may suffer from severe disruption in 
those areas where milk is sold for 12 cents a ciuart from military base 
commissaries and 24 cents a quart from civilian groceries. In regard to 
milk sales to public and private schools, a subcommittee was appointed 
to study and make recommendations on a similar problem involving 
below-minimum bids. Department spokesmen also explained the reor- 
ganization of the Bureau of Milk Stabilization, effective September 1, 
1960, which created a third control area with headquarters in Sacra- 
mento and added 14 new personnel positions. They said the present 
assessment level of 0.2 cents per pound of milkfat is adequate to pay 
salaries and buy necessary equipment ; in fact, they said, a surplus of 
$92,820 accumulated in fiscal 1959. Committee discussions of depot and 
plant dock sales were reported in a previous chapter. 

Finally, it must be said that this committee commends the work being 
done by these study committees and the initiative shown by Director 
"Warne and his staff in organizing and directing that work. The effort 
made by these experienced and astute agricultural and industrial 
leaders in these important studies is an encouraging signal that the 
present problems of California's vital and djoiamic dairy industry may 
be soon if not completely and permanently resolved. We congratulate 
Director Warne, his staff and the 48 members of these committees on 
their interest and diligence and we look forward, as do the people of 
California, to the fruitful conclusions they must reach. 



During' the interim, from June 19, 1U')9, through January 2, 1961, 
your Committee on Livestock and Dairies has met 10 times. Half of 
our meetings were held in regard to the problem of milk depots and 
plant docks, the subject matter of Assembly Bill 2319 (Porter — 1959). 

On 5, 1959, your committee met iu Sacramento to organize 
for interim Avork. The committee decided to first undertake a study of 
A. B. 2819 because of tlie controversy stirred by the proposed amend- 
ment to the ]\Iilk Stabilization and Control Act during the last (4eneral 
Session. The committee also decided to participate in the California 
Legislative Liternship Program. 

On September 4, 1959, your eonnnittee met again in Sacramento to 
hear -witnesses from the State Department of Agriculture discuss 
administrative problems relating to resale milk pricing, especially 
those affecting depots and docks, under the Milk Control Act. The 
meeting Avas held jointly with the Senate Fact-Finding Committee 
on Agriculture, Senator Panl Byrne, Chairman, and two departmental 
spokesmen were heard during the two-hour session. 

On November 9, 1959, your committee met in Stockton to obtain 
testimony from dairy industry leaders relating to A. B. 2319. Seven- 
teen witnesses testified during tlie 6|-hour session and the meeting 
was very well attended. 

On November 10, 1959, your committee met in San Francisco and 
obtained testimony from 15 Avitnesses relating to A. B. 2319 during the 
4^-liour session which was well attended. 

On November 12, 1959, your committee met in Paramount, Los An- 
geles County, and obtained testimony from 28 witnesses on A. B. 2319 
during the T^-hour hearing Avhich was very well attended. 

On .Tanu;iry 20, 19()0, your committee met again in Sacramento to 
eonclude its planned liearing schedule on A. B. 2319 and heard 12 
witnesses during the 5J-hour session. It was well attended. 

In all, the commit! ee heard 74 witnesses testify on A. B. 2319 during 
26 hours at five consecutive meetings. 

Your committee was not activated during the Budget Session, Febru- 
ary 1, 1960, throiigh April 8, IfHiO. and consequently held no hearings 
during that period.* 

On May 10, 1960, your committee met in Modesto to obtain testi- 
mony from 19 witnesses during a six-hour session on freiglit differen- 
tials for (irade A milk handled in bulk. Assembly Concurrent l\esolu- 
tion 34 (Biddick — 1960). Other matters discussed included the Grade 

' See Progress Ropnrt, A.'<se»iiblv Interim CommittPe on I^ivestnck and Dairies, 
Assembly Daily .Journal, March l.'.. I!t60, pp. 330-32. 



A surplus, contractual arrangenieiits, Grade B problems, federal mar- 
keting orders and country plant charges. 

On Jinie 28-29, 1960, your committee met jointly with the Senate 
Fact-Finding Committee on Agriculture in Fresno to hear testimony 
on four legislative proposals: A. B. 2412 (Garrigus — 1959) on trans- 
portation service charges at country plants; S. B. 890 (Donnelly — 
1959) on upgrading cultured buttermilk; S. B. 1167 (Cobey— 1959) 
on a marketing law for Grade B milk; and S. B. 1442 (Donnelly — 
1959) on a uniform milk purchase contract law. The committees heard 
39 witnesses during the 9^ -hour sessions which were very well attended. 

On November 17, 1960, your committee met again in Sacramento to 
review its final report and discuss findings and recommendations. 

In sum, your committee has met 10 times and heard 132 witnesses 
during nearly 50 hours of session in six California cities. It has met 
jointly with the Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Agriculture on 
three occasions wdth your chairman presiding. It has taken testimony 
on the following proposals : 

1. A. B. 2319 (Porter — 1959) on depots and plant docks, five hear- 
ings including one joint meeting; 

2. A. C. R. 34 (Biddick — -1960) on milk hauling differentials, one 
hearing ; 

3. A. B. 2412 (Garrigus — 1959) on country plant service charges, 
one hearing; 

4. S. B. 1167 (Cobey — 1959) on a Grade B marketing law, one 
hearing ; 

5. S. B. 890 (Donnelly — 1959) on upgrading buttermilk, one hear- 
ing ; and 

6. S. B. 1442 (Donnelly — 1959) on uniform milk purchase contracts, 
one hearing. 

Other bills referred to this committee were not heard because (1) the 
respective authors did not want them heard, or (2) subject matter was 
sufficiently covered by other hearings, or (3) other agencies or com- 
mittees were considering similar subject matter, or (4) neither sufficient 
time nor sufficient funds were available. For instance, the Senate Fact- 
Finding Committee on Agriculture has held a hearing and has made 
a study of milk inspection fees about which Assembly Bill 2307 (Pattee 
• — 1959) is concerned.^ Likewise, the Department of Agriculture Milk 
Study Committees, as indicated previously, have exerted_ considerable 
effort to find solutions to the contract problems perplexing the Cali- 
fornia dairy industry and thus obviated any necessity for your com- 
mittee to fully consider the proposal by Senator Donnelly, S. B. 1442. 


In addition to following a full hearing schedule, your committee, 
through its chairman, made use of its staff, including secretary and. 

2 See hearing transcript, Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Agriculture, September 
6-7, 1960. 


consultant,'* to gatlier and report information, co-operate with various 
state agencies and industry groups and co-ordinate interim activities. 
For instance, staff members liave arranged and prepared hearing 
agenda, edited and distributed transcripts, written and distributed 
background reports and hearing summaries. They have attended other 
committee and departmental meetings. Tiiey have attended conventions 
and met frequently with state personnel, dairy industry representa- 
tives and private individuals. They have made field trips to two dairy 
farms, a commercial creamery and a milk dejiot. They have answered 
and made numerous requests, both oral and postal, for information and 
reports. They have spent numerous man-hours in research, including 
interviews, data analysis and reading. 


The committee would like to acknoAvledge its debt to various organiza- 
tions and individuals for their unfailing cooperation and assistance in 
the accumulation of the data and testimony represented by this report. 
We are indebted to Agriculture Director William E. Warne and his 
predecessor, William C. Jacobsen, for the help which their staff, includ- 
ing Deputy Director Charles V. Dick, Assistant Director William J. 
Kuhrt, Chief Donald A. Weinland and Assistant Chief Louis C. Shafer 
of the Bureau of Milk Stabilization, has given this committee in the past 
18 months. We are also indebted to the following for their cooperation 
and assistance: Dairy Institute of California, California Milk Pro- 
ucers' Federation, California Farm Bureau Federation, California 
Grange, Western Dairymen's Association, California Grocers' Associa- 
tion, Southern California Producers' Association, Cash-and-Carry 
Dairj'- Association of California, Cash-and-Carry Drive-in Association 
of California, California Dairymen, Inc., Associated Dairymen, Inc., 
Allied Dairjanen, Inc., American Dairy Association of California and 
numerous individuals associated Avith or independent of these groups 
who came before us voluntarily. We are also grateful for the continued 
assistance of the Legislative Counsel and his staff and the staff of the 
Legislative Reference Librarv. 

•The Legislative Intern wa.s employed as Lep:islati\e Assi.stant on July 1, 1960 pur- 
suant to H.R. 32G, paragraph 7, 1959, and with the approval of the Committee 
on Rules as granted June 22, 1960. 




Location and Number,* November, 1960 

Sonoma: R-3, PD 
Napa: R-3 
Solano: R-1, PD-1 

Contra Costa: 
R-1, PD-12 
R-b, PD-13 
San Mateo: R-1 
Santa Clara: R-8 
Santa Cruz: R-1 

Placer: R-1, PD-1 

Yuba: R-2, PD-1 

Yolo: R-2 

Sacramento: R-1, PD-16 

San Joaquin: R-1, PD-13 

Stanislaus: R-1, PD-li 

Orange: R-16, PD-5 

* Data from Bureau of Milk Stabilization on the next page. Key : R number of ranch 
operations ; PD number of plant docks. 



Location and Nuaiber, Noe-re- '^tO 

Vmutw P'*"* dock 

Alameda 4 13 

Butte 1 

Contra Costa 1 12 

El Dorado 1 

Fresno 9 

Humboldt 4 

Imperial 1 

Inyo 3 

Kern 3 

Kingj^ 3 

Lake 1 

Los Angeles 103 ^ 

Madera 1 

Monterey 1 

Xapa 3 

Orange 16 5 

Placer 1 1 

Rirerside 19 

Sacramento 1 16 

San Bernardino 33 1 

San Diego 21 2 

San Joaquin 1 IS 

San Luis Obispo 3 2 

San Mateo 1 

Santa Barbara 1 

Santa Clara 8 

Santa Cruz 1 

Siskiyou 1 

Solano 1 1 

Sonoma 3 3 

Stanislaus 1 4 

Tdiama 1 

Tulare 5 1 

Tentura 4 

Yolo 2 

Yuba 2 1 

Total 260 100 

(Nois: There is no way to distinguish milk depots from the available data. Pre- 
sumably, a number of these 3S0 operations could l>e diaracteristically defined as 
milk d^mts as in the text.) 



Processing Plant Differentials and Fluid Milk Sales (Gallons) by Marketing Area 

Differential May Muy May 

Marketing area per quart 195S 1059 1060 

Alameda-Coutra Costa li.^ 75,687 194,94:1 261,761 

Butte-Glenn 1^ 18 20 4,057 

Imperial l(f n/r n/r n/r 

Kern 1(! 162 145 200 

Kings-Tulare l<f n/r 111 31 

Los Angeles 1«! 183,577 207,557 317,704 

Monterey-Santa Cruz ^ 1«( 600 n/r 3,704 

Napa-Sonoma 10 n/r 6,351 8,600 

(Redwood Zone 1) 

Sacramento Zone 1 2^ 93,411 119,422 133,119 

San Bernardino-Riverside 1^ n/r n/r n/r 

San Diego U n/r n/r 2,990 

San Joaquin 2(; 69,227 74,980 88,814 

San Luis Obispo 2i«i= 8,284 13,007 14,452 

Santa Barbara-Ventura 1^ n/r n/r n/r 

Santa Clara 1^ 5,852 8,252 8,428 

Siskiyou 1^ n/r n/r n/r 

Solano l«f n/r n/r 7,949 

Stanislaus 1(} 36,555 48,328 41,815 « 

18 Total 473,373 673,116 893,408 

n/r Not reported. 

1 Plant dock opened May 2. 1960. 

2 Computed from 10^ a gallon differential on gallon container sales only. 
' Estimated by bureau officials from incomplete reports. 



Excerpts from the Opinion of Justice Van Dyke, Third District Court of Appeals in 
Alisasf V. Jacobsen (3d Civil 9615) 

On Ajiril 15, 1!)()(), iu the court's decision to aftinn tlie jndynient of 
tlie Superior Court : 

"Tlicre has been and will be varying methods of distribution, wholes;ile and retail, 
and these methods will, from time to time, change as conditions change. . . . 
Methods of distribution in one area may differ from those that predominate in 
anotlier." (p. 3) 

"The fact that at one point, that is, when the retail sale is made to consumers, 
there is a great similarity in what is done will not justify a holding that the same 
methiid of distriitution is i)eing used." (p. 5) 

On ]\Iay 11, 1960, in the court's decision to deny petition for re- 
hearinj; : 

"Nothing in the opinion was intendinl to deny or disjiarage the authority of the 
•lirector under Section 4.''>00 of the Agricultural Code in fixing minimum jtrices to 
depart from ascertained costs, accorcliug to method of distrii)ution and reasonable 
return ()n capital investment if the statutory conditions for such departure are 
found to exist." 




Chart taken from Dairy Information Bulletin, Vol. XVII, No. 2, May, 1960, California 
Crop and Livestock Reporting Service 

Cows milked (hundred) 
Production per cow (pounds) 


Total production 
(million pounds) 















Average Number of Cows Milked, Average Production of Milk per Cow, and 
Total Production of Milk on Farms, California, 1935-1959 




Chart taken from Dairy Information Bulletin, Vol. XVII, No. 7, October, 1960, 
California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Data for chart may be found 

on the next pape. 

Sales of Fluid Milk 
(quarts per capita) 

Personal Income 
(dollars per capita) 

- 1200 

193i4 1939 I9U/4 19li9 1951* 1959 

Sales of Fluid Ulll< and Personal Income, Per Capita, California, 1931-1959 

APPENDIX 5-Continued 





July 1 



























Total sales of fluid milk, 






























Sales of 

milk per 



























per capita, 



























Cost of 



per capita, 




























Commerce""""' ^'"^"'"^^^^ ™'**' ^'''''' Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic 
Cost of Living, United States: United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 




fmi llion pounds) 




1935 1939 

Manufacture of Butter and Nonfat Dry Mil. Solids (Powdered Slcirn Milk) 
in California, 193p-19?y 






Nonfat dry 
milk solids 






3 1. .5.50 

Nonfat dry 
milk solids 


Chart and data taken from Dairy Information BulUtin, Vol. XVII, No. 3, June, 1960, 
Livestock Ucportlng Sen Ice. 

California Crop and 




Chart taken from Daii-y Information Bulletin, Vol. XVI, No. 12, March. 1960, 
California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 

Tho us and pounds 







Average Daily Production of Manufacturing Milk, and "Other than 
Class 1" Market Milk Available for Manufacture, in California, 
by Months, 195ii~1959 

Production of Manufacturing Milk 































1959 . 


"Other than Class 1" Market Milk 




























3 049 





2 938 






Grade A Committee 
Josoph F. Rnmco, Los Banos 

State PiosidiMit, Westorii Dairymen's Assr)ciation, Merced. 
Dewey W. Buckcl, San Diejto 

Cliairman, San Diego Milk Producers' Council. 
Harry Corea, Los Angeles 

Manager, I>os Angeles Mutual Dairymen's Association. 
Levi Hubble, Tulare 

Manager, Tulare County Consolidated Milk Producers' Associatit>n. 
Jame.s E. ^laino, San Luis Obispo 

President, California Milk Producers' Federation, Sacramento. 
John Perez, Anderson 

Chairman, Northern Valley Regional Producer Control Board. 

♦Fred Rau, Fre.sno 

District President, American Dairy Association. 
AVesley N. Sawyer, Waterford 

Vice President, California Milk Producers' Federation, Sacramento. 
Gerald Van Horn, Bakerstield 

Chairman, Southern San Joaquin Regional Producer Control Board. 
John Watson, Petaluma 

I*resident, State Board of Agriculture. 
Albert E. Weber, Paramount 

Manager, Protected Milk Producers' Association, Paramount, 
♦vice Reynold Thompson, Fresno, Member, San Joaquin Regional Producer Conin 

Board, who resigned. 

Grade B Committee 
Jo.seph Bono, Tulare Joseph J. Mello, Orland 

William E. Bragga. Petaluma Roy Miller, Gait 
Albert Enos, Orland Chris H. Rasmussen, Ferndale 

Earl Francis, Escalon George Sheldon, Laton 

Wallace Garcia, Patterson Bob Sherman, Newman 

Joe A. Silva, Los Banos 

Processors-Distributors Committee 

Kenneth L. Ball, Whittier 

Whittier Sanitary Dairy Company. 
G. H. Brockmeyer, I^os Angeles 

Vice President, Arden Farms Company. 
Ray, Oakland 

Lucerne Milk Division, Safeway Stores, Inc. 
Les Evans, Los Angeles 

General Manager, Challenge Cream and Butter Association. 
John Fitz|)atrick, Redding 

McCall's Dairy Products Company. 
Merle J. (Joddard, San Francisco 

A.ssistant Secretary, California Grocers Association. 
Vernon Hansen, Sacramento 

Crystal Cream and Butter Company. 
Donald ^L Ilardie, Modesto 

Manager, Central California Milk Producers' Association. 


Processors— Distributors Committee— Continued 

Fred MoiTill, Sau Francisco 

President, Borden's Dairy Delivery Company 
Burt Mosher, San Francisco 

Market Coordinator, Foremost-Golden State Company. 
Milton Natapoff, Los Angeles 

General Manager, Avalon Farms, Inc. 
Harlan Nissen, Pasadena 

Meadow Gold Division, Beatrice Foods Company. 
Charles Noell, Los Angeles 

Carnation Company. 
R. E. Osborne, Los Angeles 

President, Knudsen Creamery Company. 
Leonard Pores, Stockton 

Manager, Lucky Milk and Ice Cream Company. 

Larry Shehadey, Fresno 

Producers Dairy Delivery Company. 

Joint Subcommittee on Contracts 

Distributors: Ray Bush, Safeway; Les Evans, Challenge; Vernon Hansen, Crystal; 
Don Hardie, Milk Producers' Association ; Fred Morrill, Borden's ; Burt Mosher, 
Foremost-Golden State ; R. E. Osborne, Knudsen. Advisers are Martin H. Blank, 
consultant economist to the Dairy Institute, and Laurence Maes, economist for 
the Alameda-Contra Costa Milk Dealers' Association. 

Grade A Producers: Joseph Branco, Los Banos ; Levi Hubble, Tulare; James Maino, 
San Luis Obispo ; Albert E. Weber, Paramount. Advisers are William Hunt, Jr., 
Manager, California Milk Producers' Federation, and Russell Richards, assistant 
secretary, California Farm Bureau Federation. 

Grade B Producers: Wallace Garcia, Patterson; Roy Miller, Gait; Joe A. Silva, 
Los Banos. 

Grade B Processors Committee 

Gene Benedetti, Petaluma 

Manager, Petaluma Co-operative Creamery. 
George DeMadeiras, Tulare 

Manager, Dairymen's Co-operative Creamery, Tulare. 
Robert Edwards, Gustine 

Plant Manager, Carnation Company. 
John Haley, Gustine 

Plant Manager, The Borden Company. 
Carson Keith, Tipton 

Plant Manager, Arden Farms, Inc. 
Fred Olsson, Visalia 

Plant Manager, Knudsen Milk Products Company. 
Ray Rumiano, Willows 

President, Rumiano Bros., Inc., Willows. 
E. L. Scaramella, Fresno 

General Manager, Danish Creamery, Fresno. 
Marty Walters, Oakland 

Manager, Foremost Food & Chemical Company, Hughson. 
George White, Los Banos 

Manager, Los Banos Dairymen's Co-operative Creamery. 




Note: The following summary is derived from "working papers" assigned to the 
Joint Subcommittee on Contracts of the Milk Study Committees and in no way is 
intended to represent the reconinieiidations of that subcommittee or conclusions 
reached by the Study Committees. It is appended merely to indicate the scope of the 
discussion undertaken by the joint subcommittee and to familiarize members of the 
Legislature with points of controversy affecting milk purchase contracts in California. 

Summary of Proposed Principles for Milk Purchase Contracts 

Grade A Committee 

Continrt Awounis: specified in pounds 
and defined for periods (daily, 
monthly) and kinds (milkfat, skim) 
of purchase. 

Class 1 Guarantees: in pounds of milk- 
fat and skim. 

Changes in Contract Aninuuts: at option 
of buyer when less than guarantee 
delivered for 30 days but increased 
guarantee if usage exceeds contract 
for liO days. 

Grade A Over-Contract: not to exceed 
20% for sale to buyer at option with 
guaranteed Class 2 usage within con- 
tract ; deliveries at less than Class 3 
at seller's option. 

Prices: fixed according to usage and at 
buyer's option if sold outside market- 
ing area but seller not obligated to 
deliver for such sale. 

Payment Due: from usage in pools of 
milkfat and skim and classified sub- 
pools for Class 1 guarantees ; pro- 
ducer-distributor should be required 
to pool his milk with purchased sup- 
ply for usage. 

Passage of Title: at ranch unless seller 
hauls at his option ; provides for 
maximum deduction for transport. 

Payment Period: twice monthly 

Quality: to comply with state and local 
standards ; provides for dumping of 
adulterated milk at seller's expense 
unless already processed. 

Inspection and Tests: buyer may ex- 
amine dairy and test milk ; seller may 
examine tests. 

Transfer of Contract: personal to seller, 
unassignable williout permission ; 
buyer bound. 

Assignment of Monies: seller may as- 
sign any or all but not to another dis- 
tributor witiiout buyer's consent. 

Processors-Distributors Committee 
should be the quantity which the dis- 
tributor can reasonably handle as 
Classes 1 and 2 ; under quota pro- 
duction reasonably tolerated, 
no 100% Class 1 guarantees, 

adjustments should be made in the event 
of unusual sjiles fluctuations. 

deliveries at option of buyers ; specific 
limits may be desirable. 

not covered. 

not covered. 

not covered. 

not covered. 

failure to meet standards to be sufficient 
reason to cancel contract. 

not covered. 

not to be cancelled because of merger 
or purciiase by another distributor. 

number should be limited. 



Summary of Proposed Principles— Continued 

Processors-Distributors Committee 
termination for specified cause only. 

Grade A Committee 

Non-performance: permitted in case of 
natural disasters, lalior troubles, riot, 
war and rebellion unless condition 
lasts 30 days upon which optional 
cancellation by either party. 

Amendments: only on 30 days written 

Term: termination only on 90 days writ- 
ten notice. 

Uniformity: required on Class 1 guar- 
antee on all contracts with same 
plant, contract amounts to vary. 

Producer Organizations: not covered. 
Notice of Intent: not covered. 
Simplicity: not covered. 

adjustments should be made in the event 

of unusual sales fluctuations, 
long-term contracts whenever practical. 

distributor to obtain extra supplies from 
contracted sellers, including converted 
prodxicers, whenever practical. 

requires sellers not to join any organ- 
ization in competition with buyer. 

intent to cancel should be given as far 
in advance as is practical. 

contracts should be kept as simple as 

Members of subcommittees which drafted these proposed principles to govern 
producer-distributor contract relations were : 

Grade A Committee 
Albert E. Weber, Chairman Levi Hubble 

Joseph F. Branco 

James E. Maino 

Processors-Distributors Committee 

Farm Bureau Federation 
Russell Richards 
Allen Grant 

Dairy Institute 

Charles J. Noell, Chairman 

J. C. Urquhart 

Burt Mosher 

Robert J. Beckus 

John Gilmore 

Martin H. Blank, adviser 

Laurence Maes, adviser 

Ned Clinton 
Ray Hansen 
Al Clark 

L-2037 11-60 500 

printed in California state printing office 

VOUME 19 NUMnt 10 






S7WABD E. aUOTT, V1« flniiiM 





PubTcdied br Hie 




SytBC^TW Speofeer prs TeMpere 


mmjnrilj' Floor Leod»r MMorif|r floor L&oder 



January 2, 1961 
Honorable Ralph M. Brown, SpeaJier, and 
Members of the Assenihly 

State Capitol, Sacramento, California 

Gentlemen : The Interim Committee on Social Welfare, created by 
House Resolution 326, adopted June IS, 1959, herewith respectfully 
submits its final report based upon verbatim testimony giyen in public 

The report was prepared under the direction of the Chairman, Hon. 
Phillip Burton, and was adopted by the committee on December 8, 1960. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Phillip Blt^ton. Chairman 
Edward E. Elliott, Vice Chairman 
Ernest R. Geddes Vernon Kilpatrick 

Augustus Hawkins John A. 'Connell 

Joseph ]\r. Kennick 



Aid to the Pennanently and Totally Disabled 7 

Responsible Relatives 9 

Youth Problems 11 

Aid to Needy Children 14 

Homemaker Services 17 

Drugs in the Public Assistance Medical Care Program 19 

Appendix 31 

Statistical Tables Supplied by the State Department of Social 
Welfare 31 

List of Witnesses 45 

( 4 ) 


This committee, charged with the responsibility of reviewing social 
welfare legislation, has done so with the end in mind of how best might 
the interests of the people of California be served. 

Firm in the conviction of the equality of men and their inalienable 
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we have viewed the 
complex problems of the needs of our fellow man with objectivity but 
not indifference, with a critical eye but not a hardness of heart. 

We have acted upon the premise that if the children, disabled, blind 
or aged of our State are ill clothed, ill fed, ill sheltered or lack adequate 
or proper medical care, then this is a problem in whose solution we 
must all share. 

This committee gratefully acknowledges the assistance and co-opera- 
tion of John M. Wedemeyer, Director, State Department of Social 
"Welfare; Arthur Potts, Bureau of Aid to Needy Children, State De- 
partment of Social Welfare, and Mrs. Elizabeth MacLatchie, Chief, 
Division of Social Security, State Department of Social Welfare ; Carel 
E. Mulder, Chief, Division of Medical Care, Department of Social 
Welfare; Philip E. Keller, Bureau of Research, Department of So- 
cial Welfare, Vincent S. Dalsimer, Director, Department of Profes- 
sional and Vocational Standards, and the staff members of the com- 
mittee : Frank J. Kieliger, Committee Consultant, Steven Warshaw, 
Special Consultant, John Carmack, Committee Intern, and Anabel 
Whang, Committee Secretary. 



The Assembly Interim Committee on Social Welfare met in Los 
Angeles on August 30, 1960, to explore areas of improved co-operation 
and co-ordination of the efforts of public and private agencies and the 
development of recommendations for state action at the next session of 
the Legislature. 

The APTD Program was established in 1950 by the United States 
Congress in amendments to the Social Security Act. The State Legisla- 
ture in California did not act to make this program available to the 
disabled in California until the 1957 Session. 

Disability as defined by the Department of Social Welfare originally 
limited eligibility to individuals needing help with at least two of the 
three major activities of daily living. Regulations have since been lib- 
eralized to include those needing help with one of the major activities 
of daily living. Effective September 1, 1960, the Social Welfare Board 
adopted a revision in regulations which drops the concept of activities 
of daily living and substitutes for it a need for supervision or regular 
assistance of another person in maintaining the daily regimen. 

The recipients of Aid to the Disabled are among the most needy in 
our State. Less than 10 percent own their own homes and less than 25 
percent have any personal property. Thirty to thirty-five percent of 
the APTD recipients come from the General Assistance roles. 

While the 1959 Legislature provided medical care for the APTD 
program, with a premium payment of $6 per recipient, testimony indi- 
cates that proper Medical Care and Functional Improvement Service 
require an expenditure of from $10 to $12 by the State per recipient. 

Specific emphasis was placed on the problem of Attendant Care by 
those who testified before the committee. The 1959 Legislature allowed 
Attendant Care on a need basis, so long as the average statewide grant 
does not exceed $98. This became effective January 1, 1960, at a time 
when the average grant was $86. 

Recent Department of Social Welfare figures (July -December 1959) 
indicate that the number of APTD recipients who are institutionalized 
has dropped from 35 percent to 19 percent, while people living alone 
or in hotels has jumped from 6 percent to 23 percent. 

Studies of the Department of Social Welfare indicate that as high 
as 20 percent of the APTD caseload is in need of attendant care. This 
same study showed that in some cases, the cost of attendant care is 
greater than the amount permitted by the existing regulation. 

The Department of Social Welfare on October 21, 1960, took im- 
mediate steps to make attendant care more readily available. The 
maximum per month per recipient was increased from $100 to $150 
and the $40 ceiling on part-time care was eliminated. Provision was 
made for approving, on a prior authorization basis, expenditures for 
severely disabled, such as polio cases, of as much as $300 per month, 
where there is demonstrated need. 



It should be noted again, that the present law permits payment of 
attendant service only so long as the average grant does not exceed 
$98. The average grant in July 1960 had reached $88.34. 

The Committee Recommends That the State Legis/crture Take the 
Necessary and Appropriate Action to Insure: 

1. A more liberal definition of disability, with primary emphasis 
on employability. 

2. Increase in the average grant to APTD recipients. 

3. The modification of present economic tests with respect to at- 
tendant care in the APTD Program. 

4. The expansion of the Functional Improvement Service and the 
Vocational Rehabilitation Service as a sound investment of tax dollars 
which converts dependent tax-users to taxpayers. 

5. The restriction of the use of recovery liens as prejudicial to the 
incentives for rehabilitation. 

6. The modification of residence and citizenship requirements, as well 
as elimination of the Responsible Relatives Law as applied to the 
APTD Proerram. 


On January 27, 1960, the Assembly Interim Committee on Social 
Welfare met in Long Beach to hear testimony relating to relatives' 
responsibility requirements. The meeting was chaired by Assembly- 
man Joseph M. Kennick. 

Although attempts were made in the 1959 Regular (General) Session 
of the California Legislature through S.B. 711 (Senator Richards, 
Dem., Los Angeles) and A.B. 1076 (Assemblyman Burton, Dem., San 
Francisco) to modify the existing relatives' responsibility scale, no 
cost of living revision of the scale of contributions has been made 
since 1950. This scale has not taken into account the steady inflation- 
ary trends of the past 11 years. The two bills, A.B. 1076 and S.B. 711, 
not only attempted to revise the contribution scale but to shift the 
emphasis of the law to one of co-operation and encouragement to con- 

The existing law is applied in a discriminatory manner. Under the 
present law, for example, only adult children living in California are 
held to be legally responsible and a married adult daughter is re- 
quired to contribute less than a single daughter or a married adult son. 

It is felt by social workers that the present law through mandatory 
investigations and assessments of contributions, aggravates existing 
family tensions and tends to precipitate conflict by taking aAvay the 
individual's initiative in planning for the support of parents. Further, 
mandatory enforcement of relatives' responsibility inject public scrut- 
iny into the private lives of the applicant and his family. 

The question of a child's responsibility to assist an aged parent 
was never an issue in the course of the testimony. There was a gen- 
eral agreement that a moral obligation exists in this regard but that 
the existing mandatory contribution scale should be made a voluntary 
scale and that the scale should be changed to take into account changes 
in the cost of living and increase in accepted standard of living. 

In the course of testimony, it was pointed out that the contributions 
of sons and daughters to aged parents who are pensioners, do not give 
added benefits to the parents but are subtracted from the recipients' 
basic grant. 

Testimony before the committee developed the following informa- 

(a) That a modification of the Responsible Relatives Law received 
the approval of the State Senate, and of the Assembly Committee on 
Social Welfare, but the bill was held up the last week in the Assembly 
Committee on Ways and Means, due to the budget problems anticipated 
for the fiscal year 1959-60. 

(b) That the total cost to the State for a full fiscal year of adopting 
a modification in the responsible relatives' contribution scale would 
be about $3,000,000 (see estimates received from the Department of 
Social Welfare for costs of various changes in the contribution scale) : 


2— L-2148 



Total State County 

$301 $3,267,600 $2,S00..S00 $406,800 

$401 3,302,1500 2,830,7<K) 471,800 

$501 3,598,700 3,084,600 514,100 

$601 3,655,900 3,133,600 522,300 

$701 3,672,200 3,147,600 524,600 

.$801, $901, $1,001 Same as $701 

(c) That the 400,000 plus potentially responsible relatives living in 
California are entitled to have a modification in their contribution 
scale, which has not been revised since 1950. 

(d) The overwlielming weight of the testimony from private and 
public agencies, labor as well as business, indicated that some modifica- 
tion of this scale is in order. 

ff is the Recommendation of the Committee That the State 
Legislature Take the Necessary and Appropriate Action to Insure: 

1. Kevision of the relatives' responsibility contribution scales to 
exempt an additional $800 in monthly income, and changes net income 
ranges on which contributions are based accordingly. The committee 
favors the eventual abolition of the Responsible Eclatives Law. 

2. An increase of the standard deduction allowed relatives from 20 
percent to 25 percent of gross income, and inclusion within standard 
deduction, expenses necessary to produce income, as well as specified 

3. That the State Social Welfare Board devise a simple reporting 
form for use of responsible relatives whose gross income is less than the 
minimum net income level for which a single person is required to 
make a contribution. 


The purpose of the tAvo hearings on problems of youth, was to study 
a proposal which would create a California Youth Commission and 
provide allocations to local governmental agencies, to aid in youth 
welfare activities. 

The first hearing held in Los Angeles on January 26, 1960, was 
chaired by Assemblyman Edward E. Elliott, author of legislation (A.B. 
245) on this subject. The second hearing was held in Long Beach on 
October 5, 1960, and was chaired by Assemblyman Joseph M. Kennick. 

Witnesses uniformly pointed to the increased incidence of juvenile 
delinquency and the growing complexity of the causes of delinquent 
action among youth. 

While witnesses addressed their remarks to the need of prevention 
and control of delinquency, many placed primarj^ emphasis on the 
necessity of early detection of youth who are potentially behavior 

Governmental agencies, state and local, together with a multiplicity 
of private agencies are directly or indirectly involved in the field of 
working with youth. Much of this effort is currentlj^ directed toward 

The problem of delinquency is a problem to be coped with by parents, 
teachers, religious leaders, the police, the courts, sociologists, social 
workers, psj'chologists, psychiatrists, public health workers, educators, 
community leaders, as well as neighborhood and community service 
groups. Yet with all of these interested groups there exists at the state 
level, no central agency for the co-ordination of the efforts of these 
groups to grapple with the complex problems of youth. 

A recent study by the County of Los Angeles JDepartment of Com- 
munity Co-ordinating Counsels and the Los Angeles County Youth 
Committee points to the need for more specific information on youth 
groups and a co-ordination of services relating to delinquency pre- 
vention and control ; almost universally, witnesses reasserted the twin 
needs for information and co-ordination. 

The Committee Recommends That the State Legislature Take 
Necessary and Appropriate Action to Insure: 

1. The establishment of a Youth Commission as envisioned in A.B. 

2. That the Youth Commission be appropriately financed to encour- 
age local participation. 


An act to add Article 6 (commencing with Section 1800) to Chapter 
1 of Division 2.5 of the Welfare and, Institutions Code, relating to 
juvenile delinquency and the prevention thereof, creating the Cali- 
fornia Youth Commission and prescribing its powers and duties, and 
making an appropriation. 



The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 

Section 1. Article 6 is added to Chapter 1 of Division 2.5 of the 
Welfare and Institutions Code, to read : 

Article 6. Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency 

1800. There is created in the State Government the California 
Youth Commission, composed of five members appointed by the Gover- 
nor with the advice and consent of the Senate for terms of four years 
and until the appointment and (lualification of their successors. Mem- 
bers shall bo eligible for reappointment. 

The terms of three of tiie members first appointed shall expire on 
jNIarch 15, 10G3, and of two of such members on March 15, 19G5. Their 
successors shall hold office for terms of four years, each term to com- 
mence on the expiration date of the term of the predecessor. The 
Governor shall fill every vacancy for the balance of the unexpired 
term. Each member of the commission shall be paid the sum of fifty 
dollars ($50) per diem for every meeting of the commission which he 
attends and in addition shall be reimbursed for his traveling expenses 
necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties. 

1801. The commission may appoint a full-time executive secretary 
and such other necessary employees as are approved by the Director of 
Finance. The compensation of the executive secretary' shall be fixed by 
the State Personnel Board. 

The commission shall report its findings, conclusions and recommen- 
dations to the Governor at such times as he may require, and to the 
Legislature at each general session. 

There shall be an Advisory ]>oard to the California Youth Commis- 
sion, consisting of the Lieutenant Governor, Superintendent of Public 
Instruction, and directors of Departments of Corrections, Youth Au- 
thority, Employment, Mental Hygiene and Social Welfare, or their duly 
selected representatives. 

1802. The commission shall have the power and it shall be the duty 
of the commission to : 

(a) Stimulate the more effective use of existing community resources 
and services for youth ; 

(b) Promote co-operation of departments of the State, its political 
subdivisions and municipalities and co-operate with public and private 
agencies and departments and voluntary local connnittees throughout 
the State in order to carry out the purposes of this article; 

(c) Encourage closer co-operation locally so as to stimulate employ- 
ment for youth at fair wages and encourage sound youth programs on 
the basis of community planning; 

(d) Obtain, assemble and develop statistical records and data that 
shall, among other things, reflect the incidence and trends of delin- 
quency and youthful crimes and offenses in the State. 

(e) Foster educational programs in connection with youth and de- 

(f ) Create such regional offices as it nlay deem advisable. 


(g) Appoint such advisory groups and committees as it deems neces- 
sary to carry out the purposes and objectives of this article; 

(h) Receive federal moneys and private grants and expend the same 
upon approval of the Director of Finance ; 

(i) Do all things necessary and desirable to carry out the powers 
and duties granted to it, including publishing reports of its findings and 

1803. The commission shall also have the power and it shall be the 
duty of the commission to make necessary studies and analj^ses and to 
conduct research with respect to : 

(a) The prevention of delinquency, crime and neglect among young 
persons, and the problems of youth guidance ; 

(b) The operation and enforcement of local and state laws as they 
concern the protection and welfare of youth ; 

(c) The operation of similar laws in other states and the federal 
jurisdiction ; 

(d) Guidance, treatment, techniques of and facilities for rehabilita- 
tion of adjudicated juvenile delinquents, neglected children, youthful 
offenders, wayward minors, and youth convicted of crime, with the ad- 
vice and consent of the interdepartmental committee ; 

(e) The operation, statutes, rules and policies of courts having juris- 
diction over youth ; 

(f) The operation of probation, parole, institutional and other cor- 
rective treatment of youth, with the advice and consent of the inter- 
departmental committee ; 

(g) Parent and adult education in relation to prevention of crime, 
neglect and delinquency ; 

(h) Eecreation for youth in relation to prevention of crime, neglect 
and delinquency ; 

(i) Suitable training and scholarship programs for personnel en- 
gaged in the prevention of delinquency and youth crime ; 

(j) Assisting in the development and establishment of uniform sta- 
tistics and reporting of youth crime, delinquency and neglect ; 

(k) Development of a program for allocation of state financial and 
other aid to counties, cities, and cities and counties so as to serve most 
effectively the purpose of this article ; 

(I) Available and needed facilities and services, private as well as 
governmental, for youth in the State ; 

(m) Such other matters as the commission deems relevant and de- 

2. The commission shall have the power to recommend legislative and 
administrative changes and otherwise to provide policy guidance with 
respect to any of the matters specified in this section. 

1804. (1) The amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) is ap- 
propriated from the General Fund to the California Youth Commission 
for its support during the 1961-1962 fiscal year. 


The committee met in Sacramento on Jnne 21, 1960, to review the 
recommendations of the Department of Social Welfare's Special Study- 
Commission on Aid to Needy Children. 

Tlie state Aid to Needy Children program has been the subject of 
widespread criticism by grand juries, boards of supervisors, representa- 
tives of taxpayer associations, chainbers of commerce, and others. 
Isolated examples of fraud and statements concerning illegitimacy and 
immorality have been used to give weight to the position of those who 
advocate a restriction of the ANC program. 

This committee in reviewing ANC has taken the position that no in- 
vestigation of this program can be undertaken with a predisposition to 
restrict nor can the cost of the program be considered without also con- 
sidering the substantial social good which is done by the program. 

While expenditures in the ANC program rose from $6 million in 
11)51 to $11 million in 1959 and the number of families served by the 
program rose from 57,000 in 1951 to 71,000 in 1959, these increases 
are comparable to increases in other large states. 




Xumbcr of Families Percentage Increase 

State June 1955 June 1959 1955-1959 

United States 620,:Mn 777,GS0 25.4 

California 56,006 71.-168 27.5 

Florida 21,153 27,6'J2 30.9 

Illinois 20,936 34.310 63.9 

Michigan — 20,464 27,5.34 34.5 

Missouri 22,109 25,983 17.5 

New York 54,287 66,145 21.8 

North Carolina 19,756 26,565 34.5 

Pennsylvania 29,886 44,631 49.3 

A study of this chart indicates that California's percentage increase 
in the number of families on ANC in the past five years, while slightly 
above the national average (by 2.1%) ranks fifth when viewed in com- 
parison with the states listed. 

California's rapid growth should also be taken into consideration 
when citing the increases in the ANC caseload. While our national 
population was growing from 147,578,000 in 1949 to 174,566,000 in 
1959, a growth rate over the 1949 figure of 18.3 percent, California grew 
from 10,161,000 to 14,960,000 in the same period for a growth rate 
of 47.2 percent. 

A look that the population at risk figures, that is, the increase of 
cliildren under 18, is even more startling. In 1949, there were 45,775,- 
000 children under 18 years of age in the United States and 2,745,000 
of these in California. By 1958, tlie national figure had risen to 61,- 
238,000 an increase of 33.8 percent and the California figure had risen 
to 4,946,000 for an increase of 80.2 percent. 



The committee recommends "The Road Ahead for California's Needy- 
Children" prepared by the State Department of Social Welfare and 
the ''Study of Administration . . . Aid to Needy Children Program" 
a report to the Public Welfare Department of San Francisco by Dr. 
Kermit T. Wiltse to those who would view this problem in perspective. 
In studying the ANC program, the committee found the above cited 
material to be very helpful. 

In viewing the specific allegations which are made against the ANC 
program, the committee found witnesses readily asserted that ANC as 
a causal relationship of illegitimacy apparently does not exist. 

Various attempts have been made to arouse public opinion against 
this program by pointing to the racial composition of the caseload. 
Discussion of the ethnic or racial composition of the ANC caseload 
without an examination in depth as to the causes of these percentages 
tend only to excite latent prejudices. In the ANC program, we are 
aiding the most needy families in our community. These are families 
who, because of peculiar prejudices and discrimination, are among the 
last to be hired and the first to be fired. A definite relationship between 
unemi^loyment and increase in caseload exists. Witnesses pointed out 
that when unemployment exceeds 5 percent corresponding increases in 
ANC caseload occur. 

Studies recentl}^ completed by the Department of Social Welfare in- 
dicate that the present three month mandatory waiting period before 
aid can be given, not only creates hardships in the immediate post 
family crisis period, but in many cases aggravates problems which will 
make effective social welfare casework impossible. It should be noted, 
existing federal statutes allow immediate aid where eligibility can be 
presumed. California has not made use of the presumptive eligibility 
sections of the federal statute. Elimination of waiting periods woidd 
allow intensive social planning early in a family crisis situation. 

It was further suggested, that the intent of the ANC program should 
be clarified. The aim of the ANC program, in the view of the com- 
mittee, shoidd he the need of children as such, not merely need coupled 
with absence of the father. 

Substantial agreement existed among the witnesses with respect to 
the harmful effects of restrictive or punitive legislation which while 
alleging the correction of ohuse, limits or curtails the aid which 
children in need may receive. 

Many of the deficiencies of the program, it was maintained, can be 
remedied by an adequately trained staff, working with a regulated 
caseload and attacking the total problem of the family in a crisis 

It was noted, that to the credit of the existing ANC program, 99 per- 
cent of those children of school age receiving aid are in school. This is 
a higher percentage than in the general school age population. 

The Committee Supports and Recommends Appropriate LegiS' 
lation to Insure: 

1. The creation and development of the ANC Family Service Pro- 
gram and necessary redefinition of the purposes of ANC to accomplish 
this end, identifying and defining the scope of services. 


2. Elimination of the mandatory 90-day waiting period. 

3. Increase in the level of benefits to reflect increases in the cost of 

4. Enconrage consolidation in some counties, of the ANC and GA 
programs in eases where children and family situations are involved. 

5. Legislative support of caseload management. 

6. Provide evidence of interest in the development of qualified per- 
sonnel by participating in a federal-state matching fund program for 
personnel training. 


The Assembly Interim Committee on Social Welfare met in Los 
Angeles on August 29, 1960, to review the extent to which homemaker 
services are currently available and to hear testimony on the advisabil- 
ity of the State's participation financially in such a program. 


Homemaker services, maintaining household routine and preserving 
and strengthening the family unit in times of stress, are designed to 
avoid the necessity of removing adults from their home surroundings 
or children from their family environment. 

While funds for homemaker services can and have been included 
in the assistance grant, as in the case of ATPD recipients, grant limits 
are just not sufficient to provide service. In many areas voluntary 
agency services are not available, and where available, only for limited 

Federal child welfare service funds entitle California to $650,000, 
all of which is presently spent for maternal and child welfare. While 
these funds are available, they can only be used where children are 
involved, thus would not assist in the development of homemaker serv- 
ices for OAS, ANB or ATPD recipients. 

Persons in need of homemaker service, who are presently sent to 
public or private nursing or boarding homes, or children who are 
placed in foster care homes because of incapacity of the mother in her 
role as homemaker, might be maintained in the familiar surrounding 
of a home environment, reducing congestion in institutions, the cost 
of maintaining persons in institutions, and the emotional costs of dis- 
rupted family relations at a time when one is least able to cope with 
additional emotional stress. 

/. Public Agency 

A. State — There exists currently no organized statewide program 
to provide homemakers services. 

B. County — Only four county welfare departments presently have 
homemaker service within their departments which meet the require- 
ments of federal reimbursement for administrative costs. These are 
Humboldt, Marin, San Luis Obispo and Sutter Counties. 

The Marin County Welfare Department has a homemaker service 
which only recently began operation. It provides for priorities first, 
to aged and/or convalescent and chronically ill adults and second, to 
family crises situations and thirdly, to "recluse" clients who cause 
much community concern. 

Huniholdt County has a homemaker service which employs one home- 
maker and makes her available to families with children as well as 
to adults who require such service. 



San Luis Ohispo County Welfare Department has had a homemaker 
service since 1958, serving families with children and elderly persons 
requiring such services. The homemakers are employed by tlie ^velfare 
department and supervised by a social worker. 

Slitter County has had a homemaker service in its welfare depart- 
ment since July 1, 1958. The service employs one homemaker who is 
used almost exclusively for infirm or chronically ill aged persons. 

C. Private Agencies — There are presently three community home- 
maker projects under private auspices, being financed in part by Child 
"Welfare Service funds as a demonstration of what the service can do 
for families with children where the mother is absent or unable to 
fulfill her role as homemaker. These projects also provide service to 
aged and infirmed adults. 

Homemaker Services of the Los Angeles Region placed its first home- 
maker in June, 1959. Serving central Los Angeles and adjacent areas, 
it is staffed by a director, two case supervisors, and 20 homemakers 
in addition to clerical stafi:. The homemaker services of this agency are 
available to county welfare department clients. Budget $90,000. 

Homemaker Service of Riverside has been operating since 1960. 
As a part of the Family Service Association of Riverside, has limited 
its services to referrals from other community health and welfare 
agencies. The agency has one supervisor of homemakers and employs 
two homemakers. Budget $17,460. 

In addition, San Francisco Homemaker Service reports service to 
226 families in which age combined with chronic illness, created prob- 
lems which would have made family maintenance virtually impossible 
without this assistance. 

The Committee Recommends That the State Legislature Take 
the Necessary and Appropriate Action to Insure: 

1. The development of a homemaker service in every community 
available to OAS, ANB, APSB, ATPD, GA, and Social Security re- 
cipients but to be extended in time to be available to all in need of the 

2. Provide state financial participation to encourage homemaker serv- 
ices for recipients under the categorical aid programs (OAS, ANB, 

3. Appropriation of additional state funds for homemaker service 
in the General Assistance Program to provide that counties' share of 
cost as a percentage will be no more than for other categories. 

4. Use of federal matching funds to finance a program of homemaker 

5. The State Department of Social Welfare be empowered to set time 
limitations in a homemaker program but that these limitations be as 
liberal as practical. 

6. The State Social Welfare Board be empowered to set minimum 
standards regarding salaries, qualifications and working conditions of 


A. Controversy Over Drugs 

From the outset of the program, whose method was delineated in 
less than two months in the fall of 1957, the State Department of 
Social Welfare, its administrator, has suffered visible anxieties over 
drugs and the prices being paid for them. It first wondered whether 
drugs should be included at all, in the limited fund available for 
medical care for each of the nearly half million aged, blind, and 
needy children who were qualified to receive care under matching 
grants provided by extensions of the Social Security Act. It sought the 
advice of the State Department of Public Health, among others, and 
after prolonged consultations, was informed that rehabilitation and 
diagnostic services might be purchased more effectively and at less 
expense. It nonetheless chose to provide drugs in the belief that doc- 
tors would frequently be unable to treat patients without drugs ; and 
it proceeded to enter into an informal agreement or understanding 
with the California Pharmaceutical Association which, it turned out, 
quickly tended to bankrupt the program. 

This "agreement" ivas 'based on the following formula: the usual 
wholesale cost of the drug (in the unit prescribed by the physician 
rather than the price obtained by pharmacists) plus 67 percent as a 
markup, $1.25 as a pharmaceutical servicing fee, and the sum of these 
three items to be reduced by 10 percent. The department agreed to 
pay for any prescribed drug that wa:; listed in national official drug 
registries or formularies. 

The program was established under great pressure for immediate 
action. Having no statistical information, the Department of Social 
Welfare appears to have accepted data given it by the California 
Pharmaceutical Association, to have quickly dropped its own proposal 
to distribute drugs at actual cost — from their own dispensaries or 
through county hospitals— and to have agreed to a contract offered by 
the association : it accepted a 10 percent discount from what it be- 
lieved was the lowest drug fee schedule in California, the San Gabriel 
Valley Schedule. The association stated that this 10 percent discount 
was in fact 20 percent in so far as it received no discounts from its 
drug suppliers. 

Drugs came to cost $4.46 of the $6 designated for members of the 
Old Age Security portion of the program alone. This left $1.54 for 
physician and all other services such as laboratory, X-ray, nursing 
care, and ph^'sical therapy. 

Under these terms drugs came to cost more than all other services 
of the program combined. The program came under public attack. 
In October, 1958, the fee schedule to pharmacists was altered slightly, 



primarily b}- eliiniuatiou of the prescription fee for iioiilcgend (over- 
the-counter) drugs. The department again sought expert advice and 
was told by the State Department of I'ublic Health, wliich again was 
one of its prime consultants, to reduce the number of admissible drugs 
drastically, that is, to "a few." On this occasion the department hav- 
ing formed a highly respected "Subcommittee on Life Saving Drugs" 
beneath the administrative level of its statutory Medical Care Ad- 
visory Committee, instructed the subcommittee to reduce the number 
of admissible drugs but decided, evidently, upon a larger list than 
the Department of Public Health had recommended. 

This final list totaled 65 drugs. As a result of its being introduced 
during fiscal year l!)o!)-GO, drug expenditures under the program, as 
related to total medical care expenditures under the i)rogram, dropped 
to 27.7 percent from 44.9 percent of the whole in the previous year. 
Thus the so-called "closed formulary" may be said to have had some 
financial success. It did so, however, by reducing services to welfare 
clients. At the same time the fee schedule for drugs remained essentially 
the same. 

The Legislature and Governor both took an active interest in the 
program throughout this three-year conti'oversy. During 1958 the ad- 
ministration named the Interdepartmental Medical Fee Connnittee to 
study payments made under this and other state medical programs. 
The Legislature later passed Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 80 rel- 
ative to the recommendations of this interdepartmental committee : 
^'Resolved (said S.C.K. 80), that the State Social Welfare Board and 
the State Department of Social Welfare comjjly with such recom- 
mendations ..." 

The Interdepartmental Committee on ]\Iedical Pees made recom- 
mendations in 1958 for a reduction in the maximum allowance by re- 
ducing the markup from 50 percent to 33 percent or $5 whichever is 
lower and by reducing the prescription fee from $1.25 to $L In the 
fall of 1958, the State Social Welfare Board conducted hearings on this 
proposal. As a result of the testimony presented at these hearings, the 
State Social Welfare Board did not reduce the maximum allowances 
but did ])rohibit the payment of a prescription fee on items for which 
federal law does not require the prescription of a physician. 

^loreover, numerous consultants and the ({overnor formally urged 
that generic rather than trade names of drugs be adopted for the pro- 
gram. On the surface, this would have the eft'ect of reducing the cost 
of many drugs by as much as 75 percent. Beneath the surface, it would 
seem to have the following effects: make it difficult to enforce drug 
safety regulations; annoy physicians Avho may not know and have no 
time to study genei-ic names when brand names are well known, in- 
culcated as they ai"e by drug "detail men"; and enable the i)harmacist 
to select the drug the state will buy from among a wide range of drugs 
listed, say, in the United States Pharmacopaeia (USP). 

B. History of Controversy 

American government has considered itself responsible for the 
medical welfare of iiuligents since Colonial times. Only since the Social 
Security Act of 19:55, however, have statewide programs been de- 
veloped; and only since the 1950 amendments to the act have most 


payments been made direct to vendors rather than to welfare patients. 
The vendor payment method is being used by 44 states and territories, 
chiefly at the insistence of vendors — physicians, pharmacists, hospitals, 
and other suppliers of service — who discovered that patients would at 
times divert the money given them for medical payments. 

Twenty-seven states and territories presently provide for direct pay- 
ment to the pharmacist. Two states, Arkansas and Michigan, relate 
vendor payments for drugs to a period of hospitalization. One state, 
Montana, makes vendor payments for drugs onlj- — when drugs are 
needed to prevent blindness or restore sight. The remaining 24 states 
and territories have upper limits on the amount of the monthly grant. 
A recent report from Ontai-io indicated that about 30 percent of phy- 
sicians' prescriptions, including those for the nonindigent, are not 
filled because the patient cannot afford them. 

The Bureau of Public Assistance of the Department of Health, Edu- 
cation and AVelfare reports that for the year 1957, slightly more than 
$21.3 million was spent for vendor payment for "drugs and supplies" 
in both public and general assistance programs. Probably more than 
this was spent : some states do not itemize drug expenditures. 

Where states do itemize expenditures, "drugs and supplies" make 
up 14 percent of the total amount of vendor payments for medical 
care. Some, but not all, of these states furnish hospital, nursing home, 
and/or surgical care, which would, of course, reduce the percentage 
they spent for drugs. In California, drug expenditures in all programs 
was 39.6 percent — from the time the program began (October 1, 1957) 
through June 30, 1960. During the fiscal year 1957-58, drugs cost the 
State 49 percent of the total program. During fiscal 1958-59, the per- 
centage dropped to 44.9. It is presently 27.7 percent, chiefly because 
of the restricted positive formulary. 

A. General Date 

There is widespread and undeniable evidence that in some cases at 
least, California is paying more for drugs under the program than 
private citizens must pay for their personal medications. 

First, a report by Paul Kalemkiarian, lecturer in Pharmacy Admin- 
istration, University of Southern California, was distributed by the 
California Pharmaceutical Association — at its convention of 1958. This 
report has both academic and professional acceptance. It indicates that 
Orinase, a drug frequently prescribed for OAS patients, and which 
costs the pharmacist $4.50 for 50 (when he buys only 50), may be 
purchased for as little as $2.50 and for as much as $5.20 in 30 Southern 
California drugstores, for a quantity of 25. The same 25 tablets would 
cost the State $4.75 under the present fee schedule. Although prices 
presumably have changed upward since 1958, by the test of this sur- 
vey, 23 of 30 drugstores would be charging more to State financed 
patients than they would charge private patients. 

A more recent survey was made by the California Pharmaceutical 
Association. It studied welfare drug prices in 1,303 pharmacies during 
1960. In one example, it discovered that Donnatal, an antispasmodic, 
is "Fair Traded" at $2.08 per 100 and that the price for the 100 under 


the Welfare Program would be $2.95. Yet, it reported, the average 
price for 100 Donnatal tablets in 1,303 pharmacies would be $3.38, so 
that the average prescription would be 11.4 pen.-ent more than the 
prescription for which the State pays. Under questioning by the com- 
mittee, the association's si^okcsman conceded that this suggested range 
of prices in which some were more and some were less than the welfare 
price; almost all appear to have been at "Fair Trade" level or above. 
Thus although the association has given the State a discount from the 
widely used San Gabriel Scliedule, this schedule, like the Iledgpeth 
Schedule widely used in Northern California (and to which it is almost 
identical) seems to be an ideal price-fixing method that is rarely if ever 
attained in realitj- : it is a goal of pricing to which many pharmacists 
seem to aspire, but it is not a fact; and any discount from it cannot 
be said to be below all or even most prices of identical kinds and qual- 
ities of drugs. 

B. "Operaiion Audit" 

The Department of Social Welfare, conscious of criticism and deeply 
concerned over the prices of drugs, attempted the first thorough anal- 
ysis of the prices it had agreed to pay during June, 1960. With the 
initial help of Consumer Counsel Helen Nelson, the department in co- 
operation with Vince Dalsimer, Director of the Department of Profes- 
sional and Vocational Standards, devised a sampling method and priced 
391 prescriptions among drugstores throughout the State. It selected 
its drugs witli the help of the State Department of Social Welfare's 
pharmaceutical and medical consultants. 

Tlie drugs were phenobarbital, penicillin, reserpine, and digitoxin. 
These drugs are commonly used. They are likely to varj'' widely in 
l^rice when there is any likelihood of variation at all. Moreover, they 
are drugs which pharmacists might wish to obtain in large quantities, 
and which are available in large quantities at wholesale discounts 
(although the quantities that may be in stock arc limited by pharma- 
ceutical laws) ; and this is an additional variable. 

The State Department of Social Welfare did not choose to weigh 
these variables into its conclusions. On the basis of this one sample, 
limited at its base by the number and kinds of drugs that were priced, 
and limited in extent to 391 prescriptions, it nonetheless has reached 
conclusions that might critically affect the program. 

The dei)artmcnt states, for example, that "There is no doubt that in 
general throughout the State regular retail prices paid by the public 
are considerably higher than those paid by the department (sic)." 

If the department's measurement were scientific, the same conclusion 
might be stated : "In the case of four commonly used drugs, most but 
not all drugstores charge more of private patients than they do of the 
California taxpayer umler the present fee schedule." 

This says little. Still, it is accurate where the department's "conclu- 
sion" is misleading. Where the department chooses to say, for example, 
that "of 192 prescriptions purchased 131 prescriptions or 68.2 percent 
cost more than the fee schedule," it might well have said that in the 
same area, Los Angeles, the State's fee schedule permits higher pay- 
ment for its drugs than 31.8 percent of the prescriptions that were 


Similarly, in the San Fraiieiseo Bay area and coast counties the 
State's schedule permits higher payment than private citizens appar- 
ently do for these commonly used drugs in 21.2 percent of cases; and 
in Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley areas, the State pays more in 
33.9 percent of cases. 

We concur, however, in the department's conclusion that careful 
generic prescribing can be consistent with high medical standards. We 
also approve of the department's concern that the quality and purity 
of drugs received by public assistance recipients not be sacrificed for 
I'easons of fiscal expediency. 

' ' Operation Audit ' ' therefore has its chief interest in the fact that it 
is the department's first attempt to gain a mathematical determination 
of the prices it has negotiated for the State; and it has secondary 
interest in the range of prices for four drugs, a range which begins 
considerably below what the State is paying, and which ends at a "con- 
siderably higher ' ' level. 

The committee views with interest the fact that phenobarbital was 
the most widely purchased of the four drugs used in the sample survey 
and therefore, was most likely to be stocked in quantity by many phar- 
macies. The audit states that "It is safe to assert that no pharmacy 
ever buys less than 1,000 ($1.59) and it is usually purchased in lots 
of 5,000 ($6.65). In any case, our fee schedule provides for a minimum 
wholesale cost of $.50 per 100. The prescription for 50 tablets would 
cost the department $1.55." A simple mathematical calculation reflects 
that the 5,000 tablets which the pharmacy usually buys for $6.65 may 
ultimately cost the State $155 ! 

The committee disagrees with the interpretation of the department 
wherein they have noted in "Operation Audit" (hereinafter completely 
reprinted) the more favorable result reflected by the survey if pheno- 
barbital was not considered in the findings. In view of the fact that 
phenobarbital was the most widely purchased of the four drugs in the 
sample, it is most apt to be representative of other commonly purchased 
drugs and therefore, permits the conclusion that the State's fee sched- 
ule is unduly generous as it relates to the highly competitive, more 
commonly used drugs on the formulary. This conclusion is completely 
different than the department's unrealistic suggestion that "Operation 
Audit" can be properly viewed, by excluding the most commonly 
purchased drug used in the sample. 

The complete ' ' Operation Audit ' ' follows : 


In .Tune of I960 the State Department of Social Welfare, jointly with the State 
Board of IMiarmacy, oonducted an investigation of prescription pricing practices 
throughout California in an attempt to determine if the department's prescription 
fee pricing schedule provides for payment of prices that are higher than those 
normally paid by the public. 

A total of ']',»! prescriptions were purchased. Among the 391 were prescriptions 
for phenobarbital, penicillin, reserpine, and digitoxin. 

It was found that in the Los Angeles area, of 192 prescriptions purchased, 131 
prescriptions or 68.2 percent cost more than the fee schedule. The average cost over 
the fee schedule was $0.87. 

In the San Francisco area and coast counties, of 132 prescriptions purchased, 
104 prescriptions or 78.8 percent cost more than the fee schedule. The average cost 
over the fee schedule was $1. 


In SiUTiimcntit and San Joaipiin Vall«'y aroa, of 07 prescriptions purchased, 4"! 
prescriptions or 07.1 percent cost more tlian tlie fee schedule. The averajre cost over 
the fee schedule was $1.08. 

Personnel from the California State Board of Pharmacy inspected all of the 
prescriptions that were purchased. Several were selected for assay and all of them 
proved to be well within the standards estai)lished by the U.S. P. 

The end result.s of the investisation are that : 

1. There is no doubt but that in general throu^hDut the State, regular retail 
prices paid by the public are consideraliiy hifjher than those i)aid l)y the de- 

2. All the prescriptions called for the drugs by their generic names, and all the 
l>rescrii)tions were subjected to careful inspection and even analysis in siune 
instances. All the iirescriptions were found to be well within the standards 
established by the U.S. P. 

It is therefore ai)parent that in movin<; toward the use of generic names in its 
medical care program, the department is in no way sacrificing quality of drugs. 

In tlu' monlii of June, llXiO, the department conducted an undercover investigation 
of i)rescription lu-icing practices throughout California in an attempt to discover 
whether the department's i)rescrii)tion fee pricing schedule provides for payment of 
prices that are higher than those normally jtaid by the pul)lic. 

Several men, some from this department and some from the California State 
Board of IMiarmacy, were jirovided with prescriptions. Each investigator had several 
sets of eight prescrii)tions. Four of these eight were purchased outright, and receipts 
obtained. For the other four, price quotations were obtained. 

Kach investigator, picking a pharmacy at random in a given area, presented one 
of two prescriptions for filling. Explaining that he might later need to have the 
other prescrijition filled, he asked what the price would be. Complete records were 
kept by all of the investigators, both of prices paid and prices quoted. 

The four pairs of prescriptions were : 

A. no Phenobarbital 30 mg. tablets mg Purchased 

TiO Dextro amphetamine sulfate 5/tabIets Priced 

B. 20 Penicillin (} 200.000 unit tablets Purcba.'^ed 

10 Tetracycline 2r>0 mg. cai>sules Priced 

C. 60 Reserpine 0.25 mg. tablets Purchased 

30 Pentobarbital sod. 0.1 gm. capsules Priced 

D. 50 Digitoxin 0.1 mg. tablets Purchased 

30 Diamox 250 mg. tablets Priced 

Of the four prescriptions purchased, two (penicillin G and reserpine) were excel- 
lent choices, providing a great wealth of information. The other two leave some- 
thing to be desired. There is really not much to be learned by purchasing and 
examining either iilien<tbarbital or digitoxin. 

It is very dillicult to evaluate (piotations obtained for prescriptions to be filled later 
on, iierhaps. In the first place, wheiu-ver a (imitation is requested, the iiharmacisfs 
first thought is that the customer is shopping around for the lowest iirice. This gen- 
erally turns out to be the case. Most pbarma<'ists will thenMii>on (piote down to the 
minimum of whatever price range they use in hopes of getting that potential "plus" 
business. Anotiier dillicully in ev;iluating the quotations obtained during tliis opera- 
tion arises from the fact that two of the i)rescriptions, written by generic names, give 
the i>liarmacist a wide choice i>f products with a very wide dutice of wholesale costs. 
These two are I>extro Amphetamine Sulfate (costs from .$0.10 i)er 1(M> to !i;2.0(i jier 
100) and Pentoh.irliital Sodium (costs from .$0..")." per 100 to !?2.1(! per 1(K>). We 
Imve no way of guessing what merchaiulise at what wholesale cost might be the b.-isis 
for the (piotation. 

Of the prescriptions purchased, the pharnuiceutical consultant decided to work 
from the following, partly arbitrary criteria. 

1. Phenobjirbital, 30 mg. (\ grain) tablets cost $0.:{0 per 1(K> if i)urchased in units 
of KM) from Lilly. This is the most expensive »iuantity of the most expensive 
brand avail.ible. It is safe to assert that no i)harm;icy ever buys less than 1,000 
(!51..5J)) and it is usually purchased in lots of 5,000 (.$0.65). In any case, our fee 
schedule i)rovides for a minimum wholesale cost of .$().. "iO per KM). The prescrip- 
tion for 50 tablets would cost the department .$1.55. 


2. Penicillin G, 200,000 unit tnhlets cost from $2 per 100 to $9.90 per hundred. 
The most frequently oiicountcrcd lalilcls of I'enicillin (1, 200,000 units are 
S<iuil)l)'s "I*(Miti(ls." Tlicst' cost .$!).!•() i)cr KXI. Those t.-ihlets are easily identified, 
each tabh't beint;- inscribed: "Siiuibb." Other expensive brands are also marked 
for identilication. An average cost of .$:'>.20 per 100 was assigned to all inex- 
pensive, "non-name" brands. The fee schedule price of prescriptions tilled with 
inexpensive brands was set at $2.10 (if anything, this was high). For those 
filled with ^>Quibb's "Pentids" the fee schedule price is $4.10. 

3. Reserpine 0.25 mg. tablets cost wholesale from $0.25 per 100 to the famous 
$4..".0 per 100 of Ciba's "Serpasil." Most catalogues list Reserpine USP, 0.25 
mg. tablets at $0.70, $0.80, or .$0.!)0 per 100 tablets. The prices per 1,000 tablets 
will fall into a $3.50 to $4.S0 range. Here again, no pharmacy buys these by 
the 100. So when an average wholesale cost of $0.70 was set, it was a generous 
price. The prescriptions for (it) tablets would then cost the department $1.S0 by 
the fee schedule. Ciba's "Serapsil," costing $4..')0 per 100 conies out to $5.20. 
Ciba's, Lilly's and Squibb's expensive products arc all clearly nuirUed and very 
easy to identify. 

4. Digitoxin ranges in wholesale cost from about $0.30 per 100 to $0.84 per 100 
tablets (Lilly's "Crystodigin" and Wyeth's "inirodigin" being the ones nu)st 
commonly encountered). The prescriptions filled with "non-name" brands were 
assumed to cost $0.40 per 100 which costs the department $1.-55 at_ fee schedule 
prices. Purodigin and Crystodigin, both easily identified, cost $1.75 

We have provided, through the good offices of the Division of Research and Statis- 
tics, an interpretation of the results of all of the prescriptions grouped together, but 
broken down into three geographical areas. The information provided therein is, in 
itself, extremely significant. 

In the Los Angeles Area, l!t2 prescriptions were purchased. Of these, 131 or (iS.2 
percent, exceeded the fee schedule, .50 or 29.2 percent cost less than the fee schedule, 
while 5 or 2.6 percent cost the same as the fee schedule. 

In the San Francisco Area and coast counties, 132 prescriptions were purchased. 
Of these 104, or 78.8 percent, exceeded the fee schedule, 24, or 18.2 percent cost less 
than the fee schedule, while 4, or 3.0 percent cost the same as the fee schedule. 

In the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Area, 07 prescriptions were purchased. 
Of these 45, or (57.1 percent exceeded the fee schedule, 10, or 23.9 percent cost less 
than the fee schedule, while 6, or 9 percent cost the same as the fee schedule. 

When we look at the purchases of the individual drugs, a very different picture 
emerges. In the Los Angeles area, 34 out of 43 prescriptions for phenobarbital were 
below the fee schedule. This very high proportion has a great influence on the over- 
all picture. Removing this item, the other three prescriptions look like this : 

36 out of 50 prescriptions for Penicillin, or 72 percent wei'e priced above the fee 

44 out of 49 prescriptions for Reserpine, or S9 percent were priced above the 

fee schedule. 
42 out of 50 prescriptions for Uigitoxin, or 84 percent were priced above the fee 

The same thing applies, but to a lesser degree in the other two areas. 
In the San Francisco area and coast counties, 31 out of 33 prescriptions for 
Penicillin, or 93.9 percent, were priced above the fee schedule. 

30 out of 33 prescriptions for Reserpine, or 90.9 percent, were priced above the 

fee schedule. 
24 out of 32 prescriptions for Digitoxin, or 75 percent, were priced above the fee 
In the Sacramento and San Joatpiin ^'alley area : 

12 out of 17 prescriptions for Penicillin, or 79.4 percent were priced above the 

fee schedule. 
10 out of 16 prescriptions for Reserpine, or 62.5 percent were priced above the 

fee schedule. 
12 out of 17 prescriptions for Digitoxin, or 79.4 percent were prited above the 
fee schedule. 

Personnel from the California State Board of Pharmacy inspected all of the pre- 
scriptions that were purchased. A very few seemed to be potentially questionable so 
the Board of Pharmacy had them assayed. All of them were well within standards 
established by the USP. 





Los Angeles 
A umber Percent 
Prescriptions jtuichasod : 

Total purchased 192 100.0 

Prescriptions costing more 
than fee schedule : 

Number 131 68.2 

Average cost over fee 

schedule ($0.87) 

Range of amounts over 

fee schedule ( $0.05-$3.50 ) 

Prescriptions costing less 
than fee schedule : 

Number 56 20.2 

Average cost less than 

fee schedule ($0.34) 

Range of amounts less 

than fee schedule ( $0.05-$2.25 ) 

Prescription price same as 

fee schedule ;" 2.<'» 


iSfnw Francisco 

Area and 

Coast Counties 

Numier Percent 








4 3.0 

Sacramento and 

F!on Joaquin 

Valley Area 

Number Percent 








6 9.0 




San Francisco Sacramento and 

Los Angeles Area and San Joaquin 

Area Coast Counties Valley Area 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 
Prescriptions on which 
price quoted : 

Total quotation obtained 185 100.0 

Prescriptions <iuoted at 
more than fee schedule : 

Number 89 48.1 

Average quoted price 

over fee schedule ($0.47) 

Range of amounts over 

fee schedule ($0.05-$3.10) 

Prescriptions (juoted at 
less than fee schedule : 

Number 93 50.3 

Average quoted price less 

than fee schedule--- ($0.38) 

Range of amounts less 

than fee schedule ($0.05-$1.10) 

Prescription quoted price 

same as fee schedule 3 1.0 

131 100.0 

103 78.6 


67 100.0 

45 67.2 


28 21.4 21 31.3 

($0.39) ($0.30) 

($0.05-$0.95) ($0.05-$0.65) 

1 1.5 


Phenobarbital 43 Prescriptions 

34 IJclow fee schedule with a range of from $0.05 to $0.90 below. 
9 Above fee schedule with a range of from $0.05 to $0.45 above. 
Overall price range is from $0.05 to $2.00. 

Penicillin . . 50 Prescriptions 

11 Helow fee schedule with a range of from $0.05 to $2.25 below. 
36 Above fee schedule with a range of from $0.15 to $2.85 above. 
3 Same as fee schedule. 


Overall price range is from $1.60 to $7.00. 
28 Prescriptions filled with expensive brand-name Penicillin. 
22 Prescriptions filled with inexpensive, nonbrand-name Peni- 

Reserpine 49 Prescriptions 

5 Below fee schedule with a range of from $0.30 to $1.10 below. 
44 Above fee schedule with a range of from $0.05 to $3.50 above. 
Overall price range is from $1.50 to $6.00. 

9 I'rescriptions filled with expensive brand-name Reserpine. 
40 Prescriptions filled with inexpensive, nonbrand-name Reser- 
Digitoxin 50 Prescriptions 

6 Below fee schedule with a x-ange of from $0.05 to $0.50 below. 
42 Above fee schedule with a range of from $0.14 to $1.10 above. 

2 Same as fee schedule. 
Overall price range is from $1.15 to $2.85. 


Phenobarbital 34 Prescriptions 

15 Below fee schedule with a range of from $0.02 to $0.60 below. 
19 Above fee schedule with a range of from $0.05 to $1.20 above. 
Overall price range is from $0.95 to $2.75. 

Penicillin 33 Prescriptions 

2 Below fee schedule, both $0.10 below. 

31 Above fee schedule with a range of from $0.15 to $3.15 above. 
Overall price range is from $2.00 to $5.70. 

16 Prescriptions filled with expensive brand-name Penicillin. 

17 Prescriptions filled Avith inexpensive, nonbrand-name Peni- 

Reserpine 33 Prescriptions 

3 Below fee schedule with a range of from $0.05 to $0.65 below. 
30 Above fee schedule with a range of from $0.15 to $3.70 above. 
Overall price range is from $1.50 to $7.75. 

8 Prescriptions tilled with expensive brand-name Reserpine. 
25 Prescriptions filled with inexpensive, nonbrand-name Reser- 

Digitoxin 32 Prescriptions 

4 Below fee schedule with a range of from $0.05 to $0.35 below. 
24 Above fee schedule with a range of from $0.15 to $1.20 above. 

4 Same as fee schedule. 

Overall price range is from $1.40 to $3.15. 


Phenobarbital 17 prescriptions 

7 below schedule with a range of from $0.05 to $0.55 below 
10 above schedule with a range of from $0.10 to $0.95 above 
Overall price range is from $1.00 to $2.50 
Penicillin 17 prescriptions 

5 below schedule with a range of from $0.05 to $0.35 below 
12 above schedule with a range of from $0.45 to $3.85 above 
Overall price range is from $3.75 to $6.45 

12 prescriptions filled with expensive brand-name penicillin 

5 prescriptions filled with inexpensive nonbrand name penicillin 
Reserpine 16 prescriptions 

5 below fee schedule with a range of from $0.70 to $2.30 below 
10 above fee schedule with a range of from $0.10 to $3.95 above 

1 same as schedule 
Overall price range from $1.75 to $6.80 

7 prescriptions filled with expensive brand-name reserpine 

9 prescriptions filled with inexpensive nonname brand reserpine 


Dipitoxin 17 prescriptious 

below fee schedule 
32 above fee schedule with a range of from $0.15 to .$1.0r» above 

"t same as schedule 
Overall price range from $1.75 to $3.n0 


The "open" forinnlary is one in wliicli exclnsions are listed and all 
other officially recognized drnp:s are admissible; the "closed" formularj^ 
is one in which the admissible drugs are specified and all others ex- 

The question of Avhich kind of formulary shall be adojited by tlie 
department has been at issue since it was determined that the depart- 
ment Iiad the funds (chiefly by reason of its havinfr reduced the num- 
ber of admissible drufrs earlier) to purchase more drugs, and that more 
funds ^Yere being added by I960 federal legislation: the evolution of 
this concept, which appears cyclically, was complete by 1960. 

The Assembly Commifiee on Social Welfare opposes 
the so-called "open" iormulary. 
It doea so for the following reasons: 

* Tlie "open" or "negative" formulary is cumbersome. It would be 
difficult to make exclusions of drugs as they become necessary, and de- 
cisions on which drugs should be excluded would, under the "open" 
formulary, be predicated on the i-apidly changing drug market more 
than they would on clinical appraisals of drugs. 

* The "open" or "negative" formulary would be expensive. "Wit- 
nesses and evidence before the Assembly Committee demonstrated how 
frcfjuently new drugs are introduced solely for connnercial rather than 
for medical purposes. Effective new drugs could be instantly recognized 
by state employed experts, and they could be placed on the "closed" 
or "positive" formulary; but to find and exclude every ineffective or 
redundant drug seems an impossible chore, and making payment for 
them would be equally difficult. 

* The Department has .stated that administrative costs of an "oiien" 
or "negative" formulary would be higher than those of a "positive" 

* The Program began with a "wide open" formulary and was nearly 

* As presently established, the maximum allowable payments of the 
few drugs that are assigned limited payments under the "open" or 
"negative" formulary were determined priniarily by one man, the 
pharmaceutical consultant to the State Dejiarlment of Social Welfare. 
His estimates of what the upper limit should be may be wholly accu- 
rate, but the Assembly Connnittee believes that more than one opinion 
should be brought to bear on a subject as important as this, and that to 
accept a single analysis, (even though it presumably takes into account 
the opinion of other knowledgeable individuals) as a basis for action 
would be to forego mature judgment: whether or not the "open" for- 
nnilary is accepted for a one-year test, as recommended by the IMedical 
Care Advisory Committee, tlicse figures and all exclusions should be 
carefully reviewed. 



Under its historical administration, this Program in California has 
penalized welfare clients dnring its sudden contractions of service. It 
has penalized pharmacists by delaying some payments and so forcing 
some pharmacists to carry the counties credit for what appears to be 
unnecessary durations of time. It has penalized taxpayers by its failure 
to develop sufficient data through which it might be improved. 

Many issues of the program would be solved by data, and until 
data are available, controversies will continue to be solved by the 
strongest rather than the wisest forces. The Assembly Committee recom- 
nu'nds that the Department of Social Welfare re-evaluate the entire 
concept of centralized bookkeeping through the California Physicians' 
Service, and to question Avhether centralized bookkeeping has been at- 
tained or whether an additional administrative step has been inserted. 


1. That the Department of Social Welfare (SDSW) adopt a "posi- 
tive" (closed-end) formulary. 

2. That the SDSW oppose the increase in prescription fee requested 
by the California Pharmaceutical Association. 

3. That the SDSW set in motion the necessary machinery to comply 
with the mandate of S.C.R. 80 which recommends that the State Social 
Welfare Board and the SDSW comply with the recommendations of 
the Interdepartmental Fee Committee. 

4. That current movements of the department in the direction of 
generic rather thau brand-name prescriptions be encouraged and in- 

5. That the department explore the advisability of establishing prices 
for each drug on a "closed" or "positive" formulary, and in each 
quantity and that it pay these fixed amounts and no more. (Such 
amounts should include an allowance for a reasonable prescription fee, 
where justified.) That it therefore also explore the advisability of dis- 
carding the fee schedule arrangement that is relative to presumed 
prices of the open market wherein such prices may not exist. 

6. That an Industry Advisory Committee be established by the 
SDSW in order that the State obtain a means by which it may focus 
its massive purchasing power at the wholesale level and thereby receive 
the benefit of quantity discounts. Said committee to include represent- 
atives of drug manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, among others. 

7. That through this fixed budgeting and pricing the department 
explore and develop contractual arrangements consistent with these 
recommendations with commercial participants in the program. 

8. Finally, the committee recommends : 

That the department find why some counties have left the CPS and 
why others are restive participants in the CPS program. 


The committee recommends, meanwhile, that data being gathered by 
CPS be used for more than merely making payments. The department 
should determine whether the IB]\I cards from which payments are 
being made might produce the following data at least : 

*"\Vhich arc the most frequently used drugs on the present formulary? 
Are some drugs never prescribed ? Are some so infrequently prescribed 
that they might more effectively be dropped from the program than 
left in it ? 

*At what wholesale levels is the State paying for drugs? Since this 
level is determined by physicians' prescriptions, should physicians be 
encouraged to increase or lower the quantities they are prescribing? 

•Are all drugstores participating in the program? Are welfare pre- 
scriptions largely clustered around some few drugstores with which the 
State might consider separate arrangements? 

*How frequently are there errors in billing? Is this an inordinate 
number by contrast to similar programs or methods? If so why? 



Table 1. State Share of Public Assistance Expenditures as Percent of Total 

State Expenditures by Program by Fiscal Year, 1939-40 through 1959-60. 
Table 2. Old Age Security Aid Payments by Source of Funds bv Fiscal Year, 

1039-40 through 1959-60. 
Table 3. Aid to the Blind Aid Payments by Source of Funds by Fiscal Year, 

1939-40 through 1959-60. 
Table 4. Aid to Needy Children Aid Payments by Source of Funds by Fiscal 

Year, 1939-40 through 1959-60. 
Table 5. Aid to Needy Disabled Aid Payments by Source of Funds by Fiscal Year, 

1957-58 through 1959-60. 
Table 6. Public Assistance Medical Care Expenditures by Program and Source of 

Funds for Fiscal Years 1957-58 through 1959-60. 
Table 7. Medical Care, Total Expenditures, by Program, October 1, 1957 through 

June 30, 1960, and by Fiscal Year, 1957-58 through 1959-60. 
Table 8. Medical Care, Drug Expenditures, by Program, October 1, 1957, through 

June 30, 1960, and by Fiscal Year, 1957-58 through 1959-60. 
Table 9. Medical Care, Drug Expenditures as Percent of Total Medical Care Ex- 
penditures by Program, October 1, 1957, through June 30, 1960, and by Fiscal 

Year, 1957-58 through 1959-60. 
Table 10. Medical Care, Average Medical Care Expenditure per Recipient (Fund 

plus Grant), October 1, 1957, through June 30, 1960, and by Fiscal Year, 1957-58 

through 1959-60. 
Table 11. Old Age Security, Recipients and Expenditures (Actual and in 1947-49 

Dollars) by Fiscal Year, 1939-40 through 1959-60. 
Table llA. California Population, Percent of Total Population Aged 65 and Over, 

1940 through 1960 (as of July 1 of each year). 
Table IIB. Old Age Security. Percent of Age 65 and Over, Population in OAS 

Recipient Status 1940 through 1960. 
Table 12. Aid to Needy Blind, Recipients and Expenditures (Actual and in 1947-49 

Dollars) by Fiscal Year, 1939-40 through 1959-60. 
Table 13. Aid to Potentially Self-supporting Blind, Recipients and Expenditures 

(Actual and in 1947-49 Dollars) by Fiscal Year, 1941-42 through 1959-60. 
Table 14. Aid to Needy Children — Family Groups (Children Only) Recipients and 

Expenditures (Actual and in 1947-49 Dollars) by Fiscal Year, 1939-40 through 


Table 15. Aid to Needy Children — Boarding Homes and Institutions, Recipients 
and Expenditures (Actual and in 1947-49 Dollars) by Fiscal Year, 1939-40 through 

Table 16. Aid to Needy Disabled, Recipients and Expenditures (Actual and in 

1947-49 Dollars), by Fiscal Year, 1957-58 through 1959-60. 
Table 17. General Home Relief, Recipients and Expenditures (Actual and in 

1947-49 Dollars) by Fiscal Year, 1939-40 through 1959-60. 





O o 

Z <o 

a. ^^ 

«. 2 

< £ 

0* CO 

z ^ 

III "^ 

5 < 






fri ti 

il iiliiliUirtOO 

j 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 11 I ! 11 I 1 1 6 '^ d 





<u t3 


! ! , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rH (N 
1 1 i 1 1 1 i i i i i 1 i 1 i i 1 1 1 60 






<u e 





■MiOOsm— iTO«00'^(NCC^'l<M-*TOtOOOOC^<M 
00 (N "^ TO 00 in ic to 00 M '.O 1.0 (N -1" 1^ t^ -M i.": t~ 

oc" 0" to" 00" to" — " IN ci -^" to" t>." — ■ -h" c to" c-i" --o" 01 ?1 
*- 'H ". "i ®. °i. '''. 1. *!. °l ^. '^. *. '". ^- ■*. "^l ■*. "l "^ ". 
to" '»•" •*" to" in" w" to" ■>*" «" to" ■*" m" ■*" -." -<" Tf to" to" 0" -^ 

«» — iC^MTOTOTOTO«TO'^"5iO 

Aid to tlie Blind 






t4,. 520.661 




'}'rot^oo-*TOOoi'-<ot^O!ait^TOOooo— looiooo 




— . i.t 00 to 00 ')> 00 r-. — 1 — ' c to ci 1^ c rj 1^ -r t^ c: « 
"". ■*. '^. "i ^. 'R. 'R. * °l "1 ^. '"'. '^. ^. "1 "1 '^. ^: — . '" ■*. 
to" 05 m" to" h-" 1^ — 0' t~" to" •»' to" t" t-" — '" 0" — ' C '0 r>." 0" 
t^MTOOioiOit^ooiO'-it^t~TO-i>toooi-;TO(^— ir^ 
-<_ — _ TO o_ IN r-_ iq to h-_ o_ tt r- o_ in_ to to_ it rj r- to r- 
>n t>." t~' h-" to" to" ■*" to" 05" 00" ■*" O) to" c-j" Q r~" to" -^i' x' to" 05 


a £ 


(Nroot>.osof — 0'Hr^t~t^®ot>.t-«»<xt~io 

t~««Xt~>0'^»< — OC^|iOt»<m — OOJOiMXOSW 





iNOtO'N-t««no»a«ra<3i^— ■— iTOXr^oX'fO 

«_ C^_ •* «_ TO_ ■*_ «0_ to r-; TO 10 TO_ C^_ —_ 05 >0 M_ — _ 33 TO_ 
oi to" ci" to" 0" 00 h-" —" n" p" h-' to" 0" in" --" «" 1"" — " to" x" ":> 

«oto^.*a> — TOOsO'»'i"350TOXi.';o3 — r^to 

«_ tO_ X_ X_ TO_ tO_ — _ <N TO_ 0_ '»"_ t~ TO_ "0_ h-_ tC_ ■■'^ <33 X_ X_ X_ 
m" in" — " h-" h." OS cJ — " h-." 10" h.^ to" 0> I-' I-" to" -^ to" I-" to" 








250,861. OCX) 







tl. 054.838,000 










1 1 ■>-■*- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

©•-IMTO'^>0«C^-«050 — Nm'«»iiO<piN.«0!0 



state of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
Novemljer 21). 1900 


By Fiscal Year, 1939-40 Through 1959-60 







June 30 


















1941., - 













































1946. -- 





44,. 57 1,687 






















1949 1. 









1950 1.. 



































1954. __ 































































* Effective October 1, 1057, tliese amounts exclude payment for medical care from (lie grant; effective October 

1, 1959, they exclude amounts transferred. The amounts so excluded are included under medical care 

t No county participation under Article XXV. 
t Higher state funds and lack of county funds reflects passage of Proposition 4 In 1948 (effective January 1, 

1949 until repealed by Proposition 2 in 1949 effective March 1, 1950), adding Article XXV to the 




State of California 
IX'partmcnt of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
November 29, 1960 


By Fiscal Year, 1939-40 Through 1959-60 






June 30 





















1., 21,990 





































































1949 1.. 




































































6 382.337 





14. ,55 1,453 



































•Effective Octoher 1. 1957. these .nmounts exclude payments for medical care from the grant; effective Octolier 

1. 19ri9. tliey exclude amounts transferred. The amount.s so excluded are included under medical care 

expenditures shown in Table 1. 
t Counties did not participate in payments for Security for the Blind under Article XXV. Data for Aid to 

I'arlially Self-Siippnrting Blind Residents only. 
} Higher state funds and lack of county funds reflects passage of Proposition 4 in 1948 (effective January 1, 

1949 until repealed by Proposition 2 in 1949, effective March 1. 1950). 



state of Calirornla 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
November 29, 1960 


By Fiscal Year, 1939-40 Through 1959-60 







June 30 
















































1,474 300 










































1949. -- 



























1952. _- 

















































































Includes children living in boarding homes and Institutions. 

State of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
November 29, 1960 


By Fiscal Year, 1957-58 Through 1959-60 






June 30 


















Program effective October 1, 1957. 





K Q o 

o -= 

-• ? 

< u 5 

u u 2 


< ^ 


< o -5 

O u 

u _ 

3 0.'^ 

<° >; 

3 >- .f 

& CD 

o ^^ 
« o 




O « O lO O t^ U3 ',0 W 

e^i-ieo NMui rt,_i^ 

O! O TO 

t^ r-." r~r . - 

ec t~ o (M 'C c^ 

TO «0 O TO tt O 


— "O O IS — TO 

« TO_ TO -1 t^ <^ 

00 1(5 |C 05 -- o; 

1-1 t» o 

lO •# Ol 

'J" ^ •* 

to to -^ 

lO f- TO 

.-1 — •»)4 

lo m m 

o o o 
d d c 


o o o 
<6 c d 

■* — TO 

•^ 00 >ra 
0-. o: O 

lO •* 1.^ 
— u-; O 

C 00 o 

TO ^ -C 

•o — o 

lO 05 Ci 

O <35 O 

o -r o 

lO o -H 

•<r TO o 
to O -H 
CI o o 

i.-J Ct O) 

— t^ o 

TO tC O 

(N " 00 

C: — 00 

<« C^ l-H 

t^ lO — 

tC TO O 


•»t< TO ■* 
^ O O 

<N O 00 
t^ iC ■^ 

00 O 1^ 

•-< TO TO 

^ U5 O 

o:mio —< Tf a cr-'J' 

iNTOt^ -H.-1C! t-'S'- 

O O O 

d o o 

c<i m la .-1 ci --o 

O TO 00 

O -H -. 

0-. -• (N 

TO C. O 

0-. t- a> M_ t-_ oi 

— " c' lO -H «" -h" oc •^' to' 


■<J"t~->J< C4 0TO CIOTO 

h-' -xf rt" i.-:' «" 1-5 

(« rl rt — 

'C 0_ (M_ 
C4 Cl' 00 
t~ L'^ 'J" 

oo_ o_ t-_ 
— ■■ in to 

o c o 

d d d 

o o o 
d o o 



o c d 


o o o 

C-) 00 o 
00 t~ o 


TO Cl 





TO -r o 

•V C 
00 TO 

00 t- 








t^ 00 o 
— TO TO 

CI -i 
^ CI 



2 00 

o t. 

C^ O 

OOOSO qOOOsO a S-woso 
— . _ ; m m ca a >n >o to z £■ "5 o o „ . . _ 

05 ^ 05 05 05 05 ^ O) 05 ? 05 05 05 Oi 05 05 

t i--^ o: 

CI cc — 
— O i.T 

■* TO •* 
— C CI 

•C TT O 
TT O 05 

O — CJ 

-^ TO TO 

TO O -- 

05 O Q QO 

9 o E«<5 

•S i 
S £ 


^ fcos S 

Is - 

•= "^ S g 
I o =^ 

inw: S3 
o t-3 

^" 3 " O 

fcf i^ 
■e >? J- El 





State of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
September 21, 1960 


October 1, 1957 Through June 30, 1960 and by Fiscal Year, 1957-58 Through 1959-60 


October 1, 1957 

June 30, 1960 

1957-58 F.Y.i 

1958-59 F.Y. 

1959-60 F.Y. 

All programs 





OAS . .- - -. ..- 













926 041 


APSB2 _...._ 

4 657 







1 October 1, 1957, tlirough June, 1958. 

2 Expenditures for Octnljer-Deceiiibcr, 1957, Included in ANB. 

3 Program effective October 1, 1959. 

State of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
November 29, 1960 


October 1, 1957 Through June 30, 1960 and by Fiscal Year, 1957-58 Through 1959-60 


October 1, 1957 


June 30, 1960 

1957-58 F.Y.i 

1958-59 F.Y. 

1959-60 F.Y. 

AU programs 





OAS . 




















75 110 


APSB2 _ 



1 October 1, 1957, through June 30, 1958. 

" October-December, 1957, expenditures included in ANB. 

State of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
November 29, 1960 


October 1, 1957 Through June 30, 1960 and by Fiscal Year, 1957-58 Through 1959-60 


October 1, 1957 


June 30, 1960 

1957-58 F.Y.I 

1958-59 F.Y. 

1959-60 F.Y. 

All programs- - 









23 4 

ANB... .. 




1 October 1, 1957, through June, 1958. 

* October-December, 1957, expenditures included in ANB. 



State of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Koseareli and Statistics 
September 21, 1960 


October 1, 1957 Through June 30, 1960 and by Fiscal Year, 1957-58 Through 1959-60 


Average monthly 
number of recipients 

Total medical care 

Average medical care 

October 1, 1957 through June 30, 








































1958-69 F.Y. 










1959-60 F.Y. 












1 Expenditures for October- December, 1957, included In ANB. 
''Program effective October 1, 1959. 



State of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
September 21, 1960 

(Actual and in 1947-49 Dollars) 

By Fiscal Year, 1939-40 Through 1959-60 

number of 


In 1947-49 doUars 

Year ending 
June 30 

Total aid 




Total aid 













tl63, 293,210 














$59 . 08 




1943 .. 


1944 .. 






1947 - 


1948 . 


1949t - -.- 



t69 . 85 

1951 . 




1953 . . 








1957 .. 




1959 --- - 


1960 . 


* Effective October 1, 1957, these amounts exclude payment for medical care from the grant; effective October 
1, 1959, they exclude amouots transferred. "lix amounts so excluded are Included under medical care 
expenditures shown in Table 7. 

t Reflects passage of Proposition 4 in 1948 (effective January 1, 1949 until repealed by Proposition 2 in 1949 
effective March 1, 1950), adding Article XXV to the Constitution. 



State of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
September 20, 1960 


1940 Through 1960 (As of July 1 of Each Year) 

Year (July 1) 

Total population 

Age 65 and over 

Percent of total 
age 65 and over 












































8 5 


8 7 


8 8 


8 9 


8 7 


8 6 


8 2 


8 2 


8 4 


8 5 


8 7 


8 8 




8 6 


8 5 


8 5 


8 4 


8 3 


8 2 


8 1 



♦Population estimates are from Department of Finance; tlie 05 and over age group estimates for 1941 
1945 are interpolated figures from Department of Finance estimates for 1940 and 1946. 


Stale of California 
Department of Social Welfare 


Iti'se.Ticli .'ind Statistics 
September 20, 1960 


1940 Through 1960 



age 65 and over 

(July D* 

Old age security 



Percent of age 65 

and over population 

in OAS recipient status 









































t28 . 3 























•Population estimates for 1040 and 1946 througli 1060 from the Department of Finance; the data for 1941 
tliriiugh 1945 are Inlorpolatcd figures from Department of Finance estimates for 1940 and 194fi. 

t Reflects passage of Proposition 4 in 1948 (effective January 1, 1949 until repealed by Proposition 2 In 1949 
effective March 1, 1950), adding Article XXV to the Constitution. 



state of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
September 21, 1960 

(Actual and in 1947-49 Dollars) 

By Fiscal Year, 1939-40 Through 1959-60 

number of 


In 1947-49 doUars 

Year ending 
June 30 

Total aid 




Total aid 





































































$80 . 40 



















1950t— --- 

t81 . 47 















1959 - 




• Effective October 1, 1957, tliese amounts exclude payments for medical care from the grant; effective October 
1, 1959, they exclude amounts transferred. The amounts so excluded are Included under medical care 
expenditures shown in Table 7. 

t Reflects passage of Proposition 4 in 1948 (effective January 1, 1949 until repealed by Proposition 2 in 1949 
effective March 1, 1950) adding Article XXV to the Constitution. 



State of California 
Department of Social Wulfaie 

Research and Statistics 
September 21, 1960 

AND EXPENDITURES (Actual and in 1947-49 Dollars) 

By Fiscal Year, 1941-42 Through 1959-60 

nunilier of 


In 1947-49 doUars 

Year ending 
June 30 

Total aid 




Total aid 









$73 . 57 


66 . 89 


65 . 57 


66 . 05 







1949. .-• 























8-1 . 49 



state of California 
Depaitment of Social Welfaie 

Kesearch and Statistics 
September 20, 1960 

RECIPIENTS AND EXPENDITURES (Actual and in 1947-49 Dollars) 

By Fiscal Year, 1939-40 Through 1959-60 



number of 



In 1947-49 dollars 

Year ending 
June 30 

Total aid 




Total aid 















































(Per cliUd) 


(Per child) 


32 16 

1941 . . ... 


31 19 

1943 . 

32 50 


37 59 


41 86 


43 17 


41 74 


45 11 

1949 . . 

48 05 


48 97 


44 20 

1952 . 

43 58 


42 44 



42 54 


40 88 

1957 .. . 

40 96 


41 89 

1959 ... .. 

42 49 


41 46 



State of California 
Department nf Social AVelfare 

Kcscarch and St^itistics 
September 20, 1960 

RECIPIENTS AND EXPENDITURES (Actual and in 1947-49 Dollars) 

By Fiscal Year, 1939-40 Through 1959-60 



number of 



In 1947-49 dollars 

Year ending 
June 30 

Total aid 




Total aid 




1940 - 





6,588, .500 

S34 21 


35 33 


33 11 


32 92 




43 36 


44 92 


43 79 

1948 . . 

44 10 


48 14 


52 16 




51 10 




52 54 


53 67 




51 42 




52 17 


53 23 

State of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
September 21, 1960 

(Actual and in 1947-49 Dollars) 

By Fiscal Year, 1957-58 Through 1959-60 

number of 


In 1947-49 doUars 

Year ending 
June 30 

Total aid 




Total aid 











63 99 


66 90 

Program effective October 1, 1957. 



state of California 
Department of Social Welfare 

Research and Statistics 
September 20, 1960 

(Actual and in 1947-49 Dollars) 

By Fiscal Year, 1939-40 Through 1959-60 

number of 


In 1947-49 doUars 

Year ending 
June 30 

Total aid 




Total aid 







9,381, .599 




















(Per person) 
25 . 80 


(Per person) 
$18 .56 




16 10 







26 02 















1959 ,.- . . 


1960 .. 

18 32 

List of Witnesses— Hearing on Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled 

Leon Lef.son, Director, Bureau of Aid to the Totally Disabled, State Department of 
Social Welfare, 722 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, California 

Mrs. Elizabeth MacLatchie, Chief. Division of Social Security, State Department 
of Social Welfare, 722 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, California 

Dr. Jacobus ten Broek, Chairman, State Social Welfare Board, 26r)2 Shasta Road, 
Berkeley, California 

Harold Simmons, Superintendent of Social Services, 220 West 37th Street, Com- 
munity Health and Welfare Building, San Mateo, California 

John E. Affeldt, M.D., Medical Director, Rancho Los Amigos Hospital, 7601 East 
Imperial Highway, Downey, California 

Charles Gardippe, Chief, Bureau of Crippled Children's Services, Department of 
Public Health, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 

Leon Lewis, M.D., 2380 Ellsworth Street, Berkeley, California 

List of Witnesses— Hearing on Responsible Relatives 

John M. Wedemeyer, Director, State Department of Social Welfare, 722 Capitol 

Avenue, Sacramento, California 
Father John C. Keenan, Assistant Director of Charities of the Archdiocese of Los 

Angeles, Los Angeles, California 

Jerry Pacht, First Vice President, Los Angeles County Democratic Committee, Los 
Angeles, California. 

George McLain, Chairman, California Institute of Social Welfare. 1031 South 
Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 


William Barr, Superintendent of Charities, Los Angeles County, Ix>s Angeles, 

Charles II. Broadhurst, Jr., Director of Publications, County Supervisors Associa- 
tion, nOO Elks Building, Sacramento, California 

Hiigli Brown. Assistant Director, Local Activities, California Taxpayers' Associa- 
tion, T.'iO Pacific Electric Building, Los Angeles 14, California 

John Fletcher, Field Director, California Council of the Blind, 2341 Cortez Lane, 
Sacramento, California 

Homer Dotrich. Director, San Diego County Department of Public Welfare, San 
Diego, California 

Mrs. Elsie Rogers, Chairman, Long Beach Chapter, National Association of Social 
Workers, 2080 Magnolia Avenue, Long Beach 6, California 

Mrs. Dorothy B. Spilde, Registered Soeial Worker, 1427 Paseo del Mar, San Pedro, 

Mrs. Robert Sullivan, Member, Child Welfare Commission. Department of California, 
American Legion, 1425 Highland Avenue, Glendale 2, California (presentation 
made by Mrs. Elsie Rogers on behalf of Mrs. Sullivan) 

List of Wiinesses— Hearings on Youfh Problems 

Karl Ilolton. Proliation Officer, Los Angeles County, 205 South Broadway, Los 

Angeles, California 
Roger Murdock, Deputy Chief. Los Angeles Police Department, 150 North Los 

Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California 
Juan Azcvedo, California Youth Authority, Fourth Floor, Office Building No. 1, 

Sacramento, California 
Morris Schwartz, Executive Secretary, I^os Angeles County Youth Committee, Log 

Angeles, California 
Dwight Lyons, Assistant Superintendent, Los Angeles City Schools, Auxiliary 

Services Division, Los Angeles, California 
Ernest Tranquada, Supervisor, Boys Welfare, Los Angeles City Board of Education, 

Los Angeles, California 
Father William G. Hudson, Catholic Y'outh Organization, Los Angeles. California 
Jose R. Chavez. Member of the Committee, Federation of Spanish-American Voters, 

Los Angeles, California 
Donald S. Howard. Chairman, Governor's Advisory Committee on Children and 

Mrs. Ramona Morin. Ladies Auxiliary, Los Angeles Chapter, G.I. Forum, Los 

Angeles, California 
Arthur Rendon. 1st A'ice Pn-sident, Council of Mexican-American Affairs, Los 

Angeles, California 
John W. Greene. Cliainuan, P.oard of Directors, Council of Mexican-Ainerifan 

Affairs. Los Angeles, California 
Salvador Montenegro, Los Angeles Chapter, G.l. Forum, Los Angeles, California 
Elizabeth Miller. Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, California 
Heman Stark. Director, Youth Authority, Office Building No. 1, Sacramento, Cali- 

David Dressier, Professor of Sociology, Long Beach State College, Long lieach, Cali- 
Louis R. Diaz, Mayor, I'ico Rivera 
Rev. Robert Walker, Council of Churches, 1542 East Sevi'utb Street, Long Beach, 

Capt. Paul Lansdowne, Long Beach Juvenile Department, Long Beach, California 
Mrs. Raymond Still. President, P.T.A., Long Beach, California 
Morris Bugbee, Boy.s' Club of Long Beach, Long Beach, California 
Mrs. Betty Toro, Downey, California 
Pauline Wielie, .5710 Linden Avenue, I.iong Beach, California 


List of Witnesses— Hearing on Aid to Needy Children 

Jolm M. Wedemeyer, Director, State Department of Social Welfare, 722 Capitol 
Avenue, Sacramento, California 

Arthur W. Potts, Bureau of Aid to Needy Children, State Department of Social 
Welfare. 722 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, California 

Norman Clayton, State Department of Social Welfare, 722 Capitol Avenue, Sacra- 
mento, California 

John R. Fletcher, California Council of the Blind, 2341 Cortez Lane, Sacramento, 

Percy Moore, Health and Welfare Representative, I.L.W.U., 150 Golden Gate 
Avenue, San Francisco, California 

Mrs. Joan Teter, Golden Gate Chapter, National Association of Social Workers, 
3.33 Frederick Street, San Francisco, California 

Charles II. Broadhurst, Jr., Director of Publications, County Supervisors Associa- 
tion, 500 Elks Building, Sacramento, California 

List of Witnesses— Homemaker Services 

Mrs. Elizabeth MacLatchie, Chief, Division of Social Security, State Department of 

Social Welfare, 722 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, California 
Ralph L. Wilson, Director, San Luis Obispo County Welfare Department, 1184 

Islay Street, San Luis Obispo, California 
Mrs. Barbara E. Shenko, Assistant Director, Family Service Association, 645 A 

Street, Room 300, San Diego, California 
Miss Deborah Pentz, Acting Director, San Francisco Homemakers Service, 410 

Arguello, San Francisco 15, California 
Miss Betty Presley, Director, Marin County Welfare Department, 622 Fourth 

Street, San Francisco, California 
Mrs. Jeanne Brown, Social Worker, San Bernardino County Welfare Department, 

Courthouse, San Bernardino, California 
Mrs. Richard H. Davis, President, Homemaker Service of Los Angeles Region, 340 

North Larchmont Boulevard, Los Angeles 36, California 

List of Witnesses— Hearings on Drugs in the Public Assistance 
Medical Care Program 

Carel Mulder, Chief, Division of Medical Care, State Department of Social Welfare, 

722 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, California 
Donald Hedgpeth, Vice President, California Pharmaceutical Association, 601 

Irving Street, San Francisco, California 
Cecil A. Stewart, Executive Vice President, California Pharmaceutical Association, 

701 South St. Andrews Place, Los Angeles, California 
Eunice Evans, Chief Deputy Director, Department of Social Welfare, 722 Capitol 

Avenue, Sacramento, California 
John Hoerl, Pharmaceutical Consultant, Department of Social Welfare, 722 Capitol 

Avenue, Sacramento, California 
Dr. Fred Meyers, University of California Medical Center, San Francisco, California 
Dr. Lester Breslow, Chief, Division of Preventive Medical Services, State Depart- 
ment of Public Health, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley 4, California 
Martin Winton, Vista Pharmacy, 4421 Iowa Avenue, Fresno, California 
Arthur Weissman, Director of Economics, Kaiser Foundation, Oakland, California 
Donald C. Brodie, Ph.D., Chairman, Drug Advisory Subcommittee to the Medical 

Care Committee, Department of Social Welfare, University of California Medical 

Center, San Frantisco 22, California 
Helen Nelson, Consumer Counsel, State Capitol, Sacramento, California 
George Sargenti, (Pharmacist), 315 Main Street, Salinas, California 
Richard Lyon, Vice President, California Physicians Service, 4.50 Mission Street, 

San Francisco, California 

Benson L. Allard, Manager, Public Assistance Section, California Physicians 

Service, 450 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 
Arthur McFail, Physical Restoration Service Consultant, Vocational Rehabilitation 

Sorviti". Department of Education. 721 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, California 
William F. Nichols, Vice President, McKesson-Robbins Company, 274 Wattis Way, 

South San Francisco, California 
Harold F. Brehm, Vice President, Coffin-Redington Company, a Division of the 

Brunswig Drug Company, 175 Sylvester Road, South San Francisco, California 
Don Carson, Manajror of Contract Sales, Cutter Laboratories 

F. E. Male, President and Manager, The Apothecary, 500 Sutter Street, San Fran- 
cisco, California 

Robert Lee Geiger, Vice President and General Manager, Bowerman's Pharmacy, 

Inc., 328 Post Street, San Francisco, California 
James D. Loebl, Deputy Director, Department of Professional and Vocational 

Standards, 1020 X Street, Sarrameuto, California 
Dr, Charles Gardipee, Chief, Bureau of Crippled Children Services, Department of 

rulilic Health. 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 
.Joseph Long, Long Drug Stores, Happy Valley, California 

Carl K. Raiser, Assistant to President, Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, Phila- 
delphia, Pennsylvania 
Charles L. Dyer, Sales Service Manager. Pacific Region, Pfizer Laboratories, a 

Division of Charles Pfizer & Company, Inc., San Francisco, California 
Frank Duckworth, Attorney for Pfizer Laboratories 
Richard P. Sellman, Assistant Director of Sales, The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, 

George M. Moore, Sales Director, Western Region, Eli-Lilly & Company, San 

Francisco. California 

G. C. Ta.sker, Branch Manager. Parke-Davis & Company, Menlo Park, California 
Edsou R. Coar, Western Divisional Sales Manager, Abbott Laboratories, 60 Union 

Street, San Francisco, California 
Lawrence Lee, Assistant to the General Counsel of Abbott Laboratories, North 
Chicago, Illinois 

W. B. Rees, .Jr., Branch Manager, Merck-Sharpe & Dohnie, a division of Merck & 

Company, Inc.. o40 Shaw Road, South San Francisco, California 
Michael .T. Cousins, President, Robinson Laboratory, Inc., San Francisco. California 

printed in califokma state ritiNriNC OPPICB 
L-214S 12-CO 3.500 






CARLOS BEE, Chairman 





November 21, 1960 

Published by the 




Speaker Speaker pro Tempore 


Majority Floor Leader Minority Floor Leader 

Chief Clerk of the Assembly 



I. Introduction 7 

Authority and Purpose 7 

Procedures 7 

Conclusions 8 

II. Recommendations 9 

Recodification 9 

State Structure 9 

Pilot Projects 9 

Attitude in Legislation 9 

Recovery 10 

Responsible Relatives 10 

Uniformity 11 

Welfare Manuals 13 

Staff Yardsticks 13 

Merit System 13 

Training 13 

Special Care for Children 14 

Foster Care Licensing 14 

III. Supportive Background 15 

The Programs 15 

The Line-up ^ 15 

Program Costs 16 

Present Sharing Formulas 18 

Determination of Needs 18 

Medical Care 19 

State Welfare Department 21 

Area Offices 21 

Payrolls 22 

Costs 22 

Relationships 22 

Counties 23 

Organization 23 

General Relief 24 

Supplementation 25 

Case Loads and Costs 26 

Child Services 27 

Boarding Homes 28 

Staffs 29 

Training 29 

Los Angeles County 30 

Los Angeles County Costs 30 

Administrative Costs 30 

Program Costs 31 

Administration 31 

General Relief 33 

Paper Work 33 

Unified Welfare Plan 34 

2— L.-2159 ( 3 ) 


California Legislature, Assembly Interim 

Committee on Ways and Means 
Subcommittee on Welfare Costs 
Sacramento, November 23, 1960 
Hon. Kalph M. Brown, Speaker 
and Members of the Assemhly 
State Capitol, Sacramento 

Gentlemen : The Assembly Ways and Means Subcommittee on Wel- 
fare Costs, created by H.R. 326.24 of the 1959 Regular Session, here- 
with respectfully submits its final report based upon the investigation 
of costs of welfare in the State Department of Welfare (Central and 
Area Offices) and in 20 of the 58 counties in California. 

In addition, this committee has carefully scrutinized a proposal made 
for a welfare program that would encourage counties to set up projects 
demonstrating the feasibility of unified public assistance and social 
welfare services. 

This report was prepared under the direction of the chairman, Hon. 
Carlos Bee, and was adopted by the committee on November 21, 1960. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Carlos Bee, Chairman 

Jesse M. Unruh Gordon Winton 

Frank Lanterman Bruce Sumner 

Charles Conrad Thomas Rees 




The Subcommittee on Welfare Costs of the Ways and Means Com- 
mittee was authorized by H.R. 326.24 on June 18, 1960, to look into 
administrative and program costs of welfare in the State of California. 

This subcommittee has been especially concerned with establishing 
the actual present status of welfare expenditures in California and 
Avhat outlays may be expected in the future, taking into account fore- 
seeable changes in program and caseloads. 

While keeping in mind recent criticisms directed at portions of the 
Aid to Needy Children program, the subcommittee has felt that the 
problem of welfare costs runs deeper and wider, and the members 
have hoped to provide an overall picture of cost factors involved in 
all programs of public social welfare in the State. 

AVhen people object to the rising cost of public welfare budgets in 
California the}" say they have no wish to deprive persons who are in 
need, but they are concerned about the size of the total tax bill. 

They also see no end in sight for the rise. The California population 
is increasing at both ends. The rate of addition of children is at an 
alltime high, and at the upper end we are adding to population by a 
greater ability to prolong life. 

These two groups, children and oldsters, contribute little to taxes, 
but their shelter, care, education and leisure require steadily growing 

So taxpayers wince. They see the federal government increasing its 
role in welfare programs, but this is little consolation when it is obvious 
that federal levies distributed for this purpose in California probably 
will cost the California taxpayers more than these programs are bring- 
ing back in federal aid. 

They look for assurance that California's welfare program is soundly 
based, wisely administered and free from waste. 

Those charged with administration of these programs echo these 
aims, and each administrator has ideas he thinks would improve the 

One inescapable fact stands out. Although public assistance expendi- 
tures rose from $356 million in 1949-50 to $521 million in 1959-60, 
there was a drop in statewide per capita cost of the welfare programs 
taken together. In 10 years it fell from $30.18 to $28.30, despite price 


The Subcommittee on Welfare Costs has striven for honest, unbiased 

The preliminary work included conferences by the subcommittee con- 
sultant with state, area, and some county directors of welfare; and 
with representatives of the California Taxpayers' Association, the 
County Welfare Directors Association, the County Supervisors As- 



soL'iation of Califuniia, tlic State C'haiuhcr of L'uiinuciH'c, the State 
Board of Eciualization. the State Department of Finance and the Leg- 
islative Analyst. 

Ill August 1959, as a result of these confi-renees and the materials 
gathered, it was decided to eondiiet a study in 1!) of the 58 counties. 
These 11) counties were selected on a samjiling basis as reflecting dif- 
ferences in population, topograjjhy. aihiiinistrative inillei-n and ])hi- 
losophy. Tiiese were: 

Alameda Kings San Joaquin 

Butte Lake San Luis Obispo 

Calaveras Merced Solano 

Contra Costa Modoc Sonoma 

Humboldt Nevada Ventura 

Imperial Orange 

Inyo Sacramento 

A (luestiunnaire was i)i-epared and sent to welfare directors of the 
19 counties witii the uiuhn-standing that the consultant would visit 
each to gain supi)]cmentary information. 

The subcommittee held a hearing in SacraiiKMito on December 11, 
lf)59, and another in Los Angeles on January 15, 1900, to learn the 
views of \ho general public, the county directors of welfare, the mem- 
bers of the State AVelfare Board, Slate De])artment of Social Welfare, 
county supervisors, taxpayers' associations, and other organizations 
and professions concerned with this subject. 

In March 1960, Los Angeles Coioity was added to the study because 
no sampling in California could be complete without this preponderant 
area. But it was d(>cided to devote a separate section of this rej)ort 
to Los Angeles County because its welfare administrative organization 
was so different, by reason of po])ulati()n and geogra]>hical area, as 
not to be comparable with other counties in the study. 

In J mil'. l!Hi(). the subcommittee held a public conference in Los 
Angeles to discuss a proposal made at the January 15 hearing, for 
state co-operation in one or more county pilot studies to try out a new 
administrative approach in public welfare. Members of the subcom- 
mittee have also met in executive session to di.scuss procedures and 
findings in regard to welfare costs. 


From the hearing testimony, (|uestionnaires, consultant's visits car- 
ried out as plainied, and from conferences and extensive c()rres])ondence 
with authorities in the field of public welfare these cohcIksuhis emerge: 

Thei'e are strengths as well as weaknesses in California's Avelfare 

California is among the leading states in standards of welfare aid 
given and is relatively liberal in terms of real and personal property 
which reci|)ients may retain in (|ualifying for aid; but there is too 
much lack of cohesion among the vai-ious programs and too much 
costly complexity in law and execution. 

The Legislature, along with j)ublic welfare oHieials, should address 
itself to these shortcomings now, before new federal laws, in con- 
temjjlation, can further comi>lica1e the problem. 




Recommendation: The standing Code Commission should reoro:anize 
and clarify the entire Welfare and Institntions Code to make it easier 
to administer. 

Reason: Provisions are too many, too conflicting, too susceptible of 
differing interpretations all along the line, and therefore productive of 
unnecessary costs and inequalities. 


Recommendation: The I^egislature should recommed that the Gov- 
ernor of California consider simplification of the administrative struc- 
ture of the State Department of Social Welfare and the possible modi- 
fication or elimination of the three area social welfare offices. 

Reason: Over the years this department has grown enormously, with 
overlapping layers of functions and personnel. 


Recommendation: The State should encourage the setting up, in a 
few selected counties, of pilot or demonstration projects to make full 
test of a more effective type of welfare service program, aimed at pre- 
vention and restoration and focused on helping dependent persons 
to achieve independence and self-care ; prevent delinquency and crime ; 
and prevent avoidable deterioration of family life. It is proposed that 
approved county demonstration programs be established, with adequate 
provision for research, and with state financing of the added costs of 
these projects. 

Reason: There is need of a new look, and a whole look, at welfare. 
Present public assistance and social welfare services are too piecemeal 
and too unrelated to achieve the social objectives just mentioned. The 
present system does not help people avoid emergencies of financial de- 
pendence on society ; it merely seeks to tide certain groups of them over 
until the emergencj^ has passed, and it often results in their adopting 
dependence as a way of life. State-supported pilot projects might Avell 
lead to a more comprehensive approach. 


1. Recommendation: The Department of Social Welfare should keep 
attention focused on long-range objectives. Prior to introducing a legis- 
lative bill it should discuss the bill's aims and methods with the State 
Social Welfare Board and should also inform the State Personnel 
Board, the Department of Finance, and legislators of the intent of 
the measure. 

Reason: This would lessen overlapping of existing laws and minimize 
the chance of hasty legislation that later would be difficult to change. 
Over the past 30 years (since 1929) every decision to relax aid eligibil- 
ity in California has become permanent; the Legislature has not later 


moved to retrench, restrict or hold down costs. This practical reality 
should 1)0 roincndjci-od whenever welfare bills are being prepared. 

2. Recommendation: The Legislature, when enacting welfare legis- 
lation, should always make clear its intent. 

Reason: This would avoid costly, troublesome confusion at county, 
state and sometimes federal levels. In the Welfare and Institutions 
Code there is no clear statement of present legislative intent in many 
important areas of welfare administration. 

3. Recommendation: The Legislature should do all in its power to 
regain budget control of the appropriations for the welfare programs, 
so as to have opportunity for review from time to time. 

Reafton: The Legislature has the responsibility of finding the revenue 
for welfare programs. However, the "Welfare and Institutions Code 
puts about 97 percent of state welfare costs outside of Legislature bud- 
get control and review by making them continuous appropriations, and 
the remaining 3 percent is influenced by the 97 percent. The State 
Social AVelfare Board has the power to increase the co.sts of welfare 
programs without seeking legislative approval ; can adopt policies that 
increase cost Avithout asking the cost, and it may also commit the State 
to substantial costs without the fiscal responsibility of finding the 
necessary revenue. 


Recommendation: The State and/or county should be empowered 
to place a lien on the property of any welfare aid recipient. This should 
be for the amount of money paid him while on aid — without any in- 
terest charge. At his death, or the later death of his spouse, the welfare 
repayment should have first call on proceeds from the sale of the 

Reason: Besides its fairness, this would greatly reduce the overall of welfare aid. It would also tend to encourage responsible rela- 
tives to support persons who otherwise might become dependent on 
welfare support. Throe-fourths of the states have such recoverj^ liens. 


Recommendation: The '• responsible relative" law should be changed 
so as not to require contributions from hard-pressed relatives. It should 
permit, but not compel, a district attorney to prosecute a relative Avho 
fails to make the contribution prescribed by law. It should increase the 
amount of income a single person can receive without having to con- 
tribute to his parents if they apply for aid. 

Reason: Willy-nilly prosecutions for noncontribution can be unjust 
to breadwinners who find it diiificult to support their own families. In 
the of single persons, many county welfare directors feel it is un- 
fair to re(|uire contributions from people with monthly net incomes as 
low as $200, particularly when the not is figured as gross minus only 
20 percent. Some would abolish the "rosiionsiblo relatives" provision 
entirely. Others would raise both tlie contribution level and the allow- 
able deduction from gross. 



Recommendation: The Legislature should establish a much hiiiher 
degree of uniformity among welfare programs, to get greater equity 
and cost-saving simplification : 

1. Greater uniformity in eligihility requirements as among these 
types of aid: Old Age Security, Aid to Needy Children, Aid to 
the Blind, Aid to the Totally Disabled, and General Relief. 

2. Greater uniformity (and simplicity) in determining the size of 
grants in all the above programs. There should be a flat grant, 
with income deducted, to cover basic needs and allow something 
for what are now called "special needs" — the justification for 
which has been diminished by the State Medical Care Program, 
particularly in OAS and AB. The State should no longer partici- 
pate in making "special needs" grants as such. The flat grant 
should be a standard family allowance based on the size of the 
family without reference to ages of family members. The stand- 
ard should be comparable to that for Aid to Needy Children 

3. A single formula of cost sharing, as between State and the coun- 
ties, for all those programs toward which both contribute. 

4. Greater uniformity of recordkeeping for all aids in the county 
and state welfare departments. 

Reasons: The reasons for such sweeping proposals can best be ex- 
pressed, perhaps, in the Avords of one of the many county welfare 
directors in California who have begged for a greater degree of uni- 
formity. He writes, after a staff conference : 

"The complexities of the present program, both in law and in 
regulation, have multiplied to the point where it is nearly im- 
possible to provide a real service program with present numbers of 
staff in county welfare departments. Yet we are convinced that 
'the taxpayers' will not stand for higher administrative costs 
and bigger staffs because California's administrative costs are 
already quite high compared to many other states. Hence, there 
must be simplification of the eligibility laws and rules if we are 
to free existing staff and administrative dollars to do a real serv- 
ice program in those aids where such service will hopefully lead 
to rehabilitation of families and to better control of loads and 
costs. The sheer weight of involved eligibility determination, pre- 
cise measurement of basic and special needs, and the tremendous 
range and volume of accounting and statistical operations re- 
quired by all of the wide variations in the programs prohibits 
much else today, and yet costs California a comparatively high 
number of administrative dollars. 

"We need more nearly uniform eligibility requirements among 
the aids, much simpler methods of determining the amount of 
grant in all programs, uniformity among aids in this determina- 
tion so that the complexities of accounting and statistics are re- 
duced, and identical matching formulas for all aids to simplify 
claiming procedure. 


"All of this Moiilcl ])e'nnit uniform recordkeepiiif; instead of 
conipletcly separate forms and case records as are required today. 
It would also permit (staff) workers to carry integrated caseloads 
by geographical assignment, thereby materially reducing travel 
time and costs now duplicated every day throughout the State as 
ANC, OAS, ATD, AB and GR workers each go their separate 
ways to the same neighborhood. 

"With siu'h uniformity one application form, one certificate of 
approval or denial. o)ie flexible case record outline, one set of 
accounting and statistical forms could suffice instead of four or 
five. One case record could contain everything pertaining to a 
household even though three or four different categorical aids 
were going into the household. 

"As it is now (Jrandpa gets OvVS — separate records, all the 
way. Grandma gets AB — maybe the same worker, maybe another, 
and separate records all the way. 

"Daughter gets ANC — again .separate worker, separate records 
all the way. And finally perhaps an older disabled son in the 
same home gets GR — again separate worker, separate records all 
the way. Yet all these people live under one roof as one family 
unit; pool their resources, eat at the same table, and jointly pay 
the household bills. AVe talk today of becoming public family 
service agencies, but the laws and rules under which we grant 
aid require us to single out individuals for public assistance rather 
than consider realistically the family unit as a whole. 

"With uniformity as suggested Ave should have the administra- 
tive funds left to really become public family service agencies 
devoted to helping people back on their own feet. 

"A number of other states have succeeded notably in achieving 
this uniformity. I submit that California could borrow the best 
of some of these states' uniformity principles, both in law aiul 
regulation, without losing the best of its own good and ade(|uate 
treatment of needj' people, or the advantages of local administra- 
tion. But this, of course, means a complete recodification of the 
Welfare and Institutions Code." 

The tremendous complexity of the public assistance programs, both 
in law and rules, is the primary cause of this State's being the second 
highest in the nation in administrative expenditures for welfare. 

A flat-grant provision, and no "special needs" grants in addition, 
would enable clients to know what to expect as an aid maximum and 
would encourage them to try to get the most for their money in terras 
of food, shelter and utilities. It would virtually eliminate the exceed- 
ingly exixMisive bookkcejiing process (about $10 jicm' entry) of in- 
creasing or decreasing a recipient's grant from month to month. 

The single cost-sharing formula proposed here would further cut 
bookkeeping costs. A uniform formula should be adopted, the exact 
ratio to be based on present statewide state-county .shares of the com- 
bined programs. The formula should be a mutually agreed uniform 



Recommendation: The State Department of Social Welfare should 
simplify its manuals for the various aid pro^jrams, eonfininji; them as 
nearly as possible to an outline of goals to be achieved and premises 
to be taken into account in making decisions. 

Beasons: Today, for one of the aid categories alone — Old Age Se- 
curity — the welfare worker is supposed to learn and know 684 pages 
of instruction, pages that are constantly revised as new rules are 
fashioned to meet every conceivable case situation. 

It is almost impossible for the welfare worker, administrator or 
legislator to get a clear idea, among all these details as to how a specific 
detail relates to a basic purpose. In many situations it is therefore 
difficult to find two social work practitioners who can completely agree 
as to the proper grant determination. 

The cost in staff time, State and local, of preparing, distributing and 
assembling a constant flow of new pages to be inserted in every program 
manual is prohibitive. 


Recommendation: The State Department of Social Welfare, in co- 
operation Avith the counties, should develop positive standards for size 
and composition of county staffs needed to meet caseload situations. 

Reason: Staffing patterns definitely affect costs and efficiency; and 
the lack of a good pattern is felt by taxpayers and aid recipients alike. 


Recommendation: The State Social AVelfare Board should review the 
state merit system as it now operates in 44 of the 58 county welfare 
departments; it should bear in mind the general rule that the smaller 
the county's population the fewer its resources, the more difficult the 
welfare worker's job, the greater the skill needed if recipients are to 
be rehabilitated and taken off the rolls. 

Reason: Comparison with the locally administered civil service sys- 
tems in the 14 other counties, which are required to meet State Social 
Welfare Board requirements, may suggest cost-saving improvements in 
both types. 


Recommendation: The State should make it mandatory for every 
social worker in every county welfare office to receive in-service train- 
ing in work objectives and in how to effect them. This could be done 
through planned courses given two hours a week on office time by a 
well-qualified person on the State Department of Social Welfare train- 
ing staff. 

The State Department of Social Welfare should expand its training 
staff, now limited to two persons. 

All state colleges and university branches not now providing under- 
graduate majors in social work should be encouraged to offer them. 

The State should develop a scholarship program, using federal and 
state funds, for students showing promise in the fields of social welfare. 

The State should try to expand the present "leave with pay" plan 
enabling members of county welfare staffs to get professional education 


in social welfare. It should examine factors that have limited use of the 
federal-state "leave with pay" so that more use can be made of federal- 
state matching grants; and it should encourage boards of supervisors 
to vote educational leaves to welfare staff members. 

Reasons: Fully qualified staff is lacking, in large part, today. It is 
necessary to an effective public welfare program. Training costs would 
be more than offset by savings in aid payments. 


Recommendation: The State slioiild make some funds available to 
counties, on a matching basis, to help pay the cost of care away from 
home for children who need it and are not eligible for Aid to Needy 

Reason: Frequently families who are completely self-supporting 
under ordinary circumstances need financial help desperately to provide 
out-of-home care for a defective or disturbed child. They cannot afford 
the $150 or more per month which special care of this kind costs. Some 
counties lielp families in sueli situations, usin<>: county funds solely, 
but many counties do not — and some very sad instances of family break- 
down have resulted. 


Recommendation: The State should reimburse counties for a fair 
proportion of the cost of time actually spent in locating, studying, ac- 
cepting or rejecting and (if accepted) supervising homes for foster 
care of children. 

Reason: If the county performs a high-quality licensing job for the 
State the present $65 flat payment to the county for each new or 
renewal license is not enough. Continuance of such a low-level payment 
tempts a county welfare department to approve annual renewals with- 
out thorough investigation. 




There are 12 public welfare programs in California today. They 
provide aid to more than 600,000 persons at a cost, federal, state and 
county, of slightly over $521 million a year (fiscal 1959-60). This is 
a $26 million increase in a year, attributable to inflation, to increases 
in certain caseloads, and to grant increases provided by the Legislature 
in 1959. 

The federal government helps with the financing of 6 of these 12 
programs, the State with 11, and the counties with 10. In one, general 
relief (sometimes called general assistance), the county bears the entire 

Most of the programs are administered by the 58 county welfare 
departments, each headed by a director appointed by a county board 
of supervisors. But the federal government requires, as a condition for 
helping any program, that the State supervise administration by the 
county. And in a few programs (these cost relatively little) the State 
either shares administration with the county or handles it alone. 

The principal legal basis for the State's public welfare programs 
is the Welfare and Institutions Code. Supervision and policymaking 
for all state welfare programs is delegated to the State Department of 
Social Welfare, which is guided by the policy decisions of the State 
Social Welfare Board. The legal responsibility for correctly adminis- 
tering most of the programs is delegated to the county boards of super- 
visors or their agents, the county directors of welfare. 

Although the supervisors hire and fire the director, many of his 
decisions cannot be governed by them because, to a great extent, he 
is bound to make his determination in accordance with federal and 
state law and regulation. 

The Lineup 

The program lineup in California is this : 

First, there are four so-called "categorical aids," where the appli- 
cant belongs to a special group of needy, recognized by both federal 
and state law. These programs, which together take the great bulk of 
public welfare funds, are : 

Source of funds Administered hy 

1. Old Age Security (OAS)_- . Federal, State, County County 

2. Aid to Totally Disabled (ATD) Federal, State, County County 

3. Aid to Needy Blind (AB) Federal, State, County County 

4. Aid to Needy Children in Family Groups 

(ANC-FG) Federal, State, County County 

Then there are the following extensions of help to blind persons and 
needy children — extensions to which the federal government gives no 
direct aid : 

Source of funds Administered hy 

5. Aid to the Partially Self-supporting Blind 

(APSB) State, County County 

6. Aid to Needy Children in Boarding 

Homes (ANC-BH) State, County County 


Next, aiijilyiii^- to all six of the foregoinj? gfroups, is 

Source of funds Administered by 

7. Mcdiciil Care State, County County 

But the 8tato also feels it iiei-essary to prevent blindness, so we have 
this progfrani : 

Source of funds Administered hy 

8. Prevention of Blindness State State 

The federal government (Children's Bureau) helps to jiay for cer- 
tain services to aid children, and in this it is joined by the State and 
by counties havin*'- special projects to this end. So we "et : 

Source of funds Admi)iistered hy 

!>. Child Wclfjirc Scrvicos (CWS) Federal, State, County County 

The state takes major responsibility for lieensin": boardinf; homes 
for children antl aoed ; for insurinji; suitable adoptions ( reliiuiuish- 
ment and iiide])endent) ; and for limited service in intercountry adop- 
tions. The State may provide service itself, or may delegate these 
responsibilities to counties where it feels the counties are ready for it ; 
and it also issues licenses to approved private adoption agencies. So 
we have these programs : 

Source of funds Administered hy 

10. Iiic('n.siM{,' State, County State and/or County 

11. Adoptions State State and/or County 

Finally, state law requires each county to maintain a general relief 
program, including indigent medical care. General relief, or general 
assistance, is a sort of catchall for indigent and other needy persons 
who cannot (pialify under one of the federal or state-supported jiro- 
grams : 

Source of funds Administered by 

lli. (JcMicial Relief (GR) County only County 

Counties usually also include, under the (ieneral Relief heading, 
funds which they use to supi)lenu'iit categorical aid i)ayments when 
the needs occur that are not allowable within statutory grant maxi- 

Program Costs 

The I'oui- federallv aided "categorical aids" and their two nonfed- 
erally aided cousins (ATSB and AXC-BII) cost $504.;i:)7.()()0 of the 
$521 million spent for public welfare in the State in fiscal 1 !).")!)-()(). 

Administrative costs (federal, state, and county) took $54,857,000 
of this. Recipients received aid as folloAvs (see also projected figures 
for 1960-61) : 

jy5!)-l!MiU nmi-liHil (projected) 

A 'I'D 

Costs ♦ 












1 :'..". KM ».0(K» 



11. !.">.-. 

\V, and 
-F(J . 










(TIh'so tlKilrcs. siipplirti hy the Stale Wi'lfiirc l>i'|iiirlment. iiifluili-, in each kikii|>. niiilical care. The 
total of such medical costs was $32,100,000.) 


The federal g'overnment sets standards the states must meet to get 
federal assistance funds. It grants the funds on a matching basis up to 
a fixed maximum. 

California participates in every federally-aided welfare program. In 
the categorical aid programs it and the counties extend full aid, without 
federal sharing, to persons not eligible under federal definition. 

Within bounds set forth in the Social Security Act the states have 
wide latitude in deciding how their programs are to be organized and 
administered, who is eligible for aid, and how much eligible persons 
shall get. There are wide differences, as well as similarities, state by 
state, depending on economic conditions and the attitudes of the bodies 

Some states have tried hard to simplify welfare laws and regulations 
and make application within their borders uniform. They have the 
same basis for determining need in all the categorical aid programs. 

In Oregon, to take only one example, the state and counties divide, 
by the same fixed formula, the cost of that part of the four categorical 
aid programs not borne by federal funds. 

In California, by contrast, each categorical aid has a different basis 
for determining need and a different basis for dividing the nonfederal 
share between the State and the counties. As among the counties of 
California there are also great variations, the greatest, of course, being 
in the field of general relief, the program financed solely by the counties 
without supervision by the State. 

The supervisors, in framing their annual county budgets, take into 
account the amounts needed for matching federal and/or state funds 
and for general relief. The size of their appropriation for welfare de- 
pends partly on economic and social conditions and partly on the degree 
of liberality toward welfare recipients. California counties devote from 
9 to 41 percent of their total budgets to welfare. 

Of the $521 million cost of public welfare in California in 1959-1960, 
the sources were : 


Federal 43.5 

State 36.7 

Counties 19.S 

A breakdown for the year 1958-1959 showed that the counties, taken 
together, paid the following shares of the following programs : 


Old age security 10.4 

Aid to the blind 18.0 

Aid to needy children 24.1 

Aid to disabled 12.3 

Medical care for foregoing 00.0 

Board home licensing 12.2 

Adoptions 2.7 

General relief (including indigent medical care) 100.0 

Because sharing formulas for the various programs differ greatly, if 
an applicant can qualify under two or more programs the temptation 
arises to place him in a category most advantageous for the county. 
But despite such differences and such temptations, there is remarkable 
stability in the combined counties' share of total costs. It amounted to 
19.8 percent in 1958-1959, as it did the following year; and the figure 


has remained at about 20 percent, with no significant variation, for the 
last nine years. 

Til is fact has led some people to suggest that much time and labor 
could be saved, and much confusion eliminated, by using one sharing 
formula for all the programs just listed. In other words, charging the 
counties about one-fifth across the board. 

Present Sharing Formulas 

In OAS, ATD and AB the federal reimbursement is $38.50 for each 
recipient. Above that, up to limits set by California law, the State and 
county share costs on a basis of six-sevenths State and one-seventh 
county for OAS and ATI), but on a basis of three-fourths state and one- 
fourth county for AB. 

In ANC-FG, where present federal reimbursement is $17.50 for the 
need}' relative or caretaker of the child, plus $19 for each child eligible 
under federal regulations, the additional cost, up to the statutory 
limit, is shared 67.5 percent State and 32.5 percent county. 

EXAMPLE : Grant of $215 for caretaker and 3 children : 

Federal share — $17.50 for caretaker plus 3 x $19 74.50 

Balance $140.50 

State share —67.5 percent of $140.50 94.83 

County share — 32.5 percent of $140.50 45.66 

In OAS, ATD, AB and ANC-FG cases that are ineligible for federal 
participation, the State bears five-sixths of each payment, the county 
one-sixtli. The same ratio applies in APSB and ANC-BH programs, 
where there is no federal participation. 

In special cases in any of the six groups just named the county may, 
if it wishes, supplement the aid with county general relief funds. 

Administrative costs, as distinguished from aid given, are reimbursed 
50 percent hy the federal government in cases involving categorical- 
aid recipients eligible under federal rules. The State bears the adminis- 
trative costs in the Prevention-of-Blindness Program; the counties bear 
the administrative cost of general relief. 

Determination of Needs 

There are wide variations, in California, in determining how much 
aid the ditferent groups of welfare recipients are entitled to. 

For OAS and AB, there is a cross between a fiat grant, minus income, 
and the budget method. 

An OAS recipient may receive up to $95 a month to cover normal 
living expenses. These "basic needs," so called, cover rent, utilities, 
clothing, education, household operations, recreation, transportation,* 
personal items such as toothpaste, and incidentals. 

In addition there are allowances for special needs, such as neces- 
sary diets for the ill; household furniture and appliances (or repairs 
thereto) if needed ; glasses, tires and car repair if essential. 

♦ Transportation allowances are to moot minimum noods of rocipi(>iits in ronnortion 
with attciidlnB .sfhool.-', vlsltinK doctors and clinics, shopi>inp aa nocessary, takinpr 
pait in .some community activities (church, recreational affairs, etc.). In some 
counties tIR employables are allowed transportation to go to and from work 
until they get their pay check. 


Special needs are extremely costly, especially in counties giving 
broadest application to the term. The number and complexity of defi- 
nitions of special need items now existing make it practically impossible 
to simplify administration of county welfare programs. 

If the recipient has income of $20 or more a month, the "special 
need" is taken from his outside income; the remainder of his income, 
if any, is supplemented by the aid grant so that he will have $95 for 
normal living expenses. 

A recipient with income less than $20 a month who has special need 
gets $95 for normal living expenses plus any part of the $20 needed 
to meet the special need. However, this recipient's grant will not be 
more than necessary to bring his total income up to $115 a month. 

For AB the rule is different. The maximum grant to meet basic needs 
is $115 a month, but the first $11 of income after earnings of $50 a 
month must be applied toward meeting basic needs. Any additional 
income may be applied toward meeting any special needs. No special 
needs can be allowed if the AB applicant's nonexempt income is $11 
a month or less. 

The State Department of Social Welfare has had budgets of basic 
needs for both OAS and AB since 1942. But these are not true budgets. 
They are devices for determining what needs (and in what amounts) 
are special needs to which outside income may be applied. 

For ANC the needs of all families are determined on a budget basis 
locally applicable and adjusted for the size, ages and sex composition 
of each recipient family. The State sets grant ceilings, but allowances 
for transportation, education, recreation and incidentals are more or 
less determined by each county; and $25 above the rent ceiling set for 
a particular county may be allowed if special need is shown. 

For ATD the law sets a $106 monthly limit for all but special needs. 
A basic $76 is allowed for food, clothing, household maintenance and 
incidentals; and up to $30 is added for shelter and utilities. The 
amount of aid granted is determined by deducting income from total 
allowable needs, or from $106, whichever is less. 

Medical Care 

The 1957 Legislature established a medical care program for recipi- 
ents of OAS, AB and ANC, and provided a Medical Care Trust Fund 
of about $30,000,000 annually for its support. This money comes from 
a monthly premium deposit of $6 for each adult recipient, and $3 for 
each eligible child, paid in equal shares by the federal and state gov- 
ernments. Administration costs are shared equally by the counties and 
the federal government. 

Shortly after this program went into effect the expenditures for 
medical care in OAS and AB far exceeded premium deposits for these 
two aids. By October, 1958 (a year after the program became effective), 
medical care expenditures in OAS were averaging $6.86 per recipient 
($4.37 for prescriptions, $2.49 for practitioner services) and in AB — 
expenditures were averaging $7.17 ($4.18 for prescriptions, $2.99 for 
practitioner services). The ANC program, on the other hand, was not 
making full use of its medical care funds. Therefore the department, 
construing legislative intent to be the spending of all these funds, 
expanded ANC medical services while withdrawing some of the OAS 


and AB medical services. This, however, resulted in an unbalanced 

In January, 1959, the Social Welfare Board, in an attempt at bal- 
ance, adopted a proposal of the Medical Care Advisory Committee to 
pay only for drugs found absolutely necessary for adeiiuate medical 
care, and also shifted substantial portions of medical-care costs over 
to the aid jn'ogi-ams l)y i-hanging the sj)ecial needs provisions of the 
aid grants. 

For the quarter ended ^larch 31, 1960, the average per month per 
OAS recipient was $6.25; AB. $6.02; ANC, $3.91. 

Tn October, 1959, medical care became a part also of the ATD pro- 
gram. Einphasis in this program will be functional improvement 

An objectionable eai'ly feature of the medical care program was that 
a doctor might get ])ayment for services from the county as a Medical 
Care Fund vendor one month, and the next month be notified that he 
must get his payment from the aid recipient. (If a recipient received 
any income other than his assistance grant, which was not being used 
to meet other special needs he must pay for doctor's care himself.) 

The passage of Senate Bill Xo. 515 in 1959 remedied this by enabling 
county welfare dejiartments to make all payments from the Medical 
Care Fund. This greatly simplified the administration of medical care. 
It also constitutes a step towai-d furnishing ade(iuate medical outpatient 
services to all recipients of aid regardless of their income status. 

General relief recipients may receive medical and hospital care in 
one of the 81 county hospitals, if the county considers them "medically 
indigent." There is some variation among counties as to who is con- 
sidered medically indigent, but generally those unable to pay, have 
no I'esponsible relatives able to pay, and cannot obtain these services 
elsewhei-e are accepted. 

It appears that some of the cost problems in the medical care pro- 
grams now are: (1) lack of leadersliip and adecpuite controls of the 
medical care programs, (2) the special needs provisions allowing ex- 
tensive expansion of medical care without legislative budget review, 
(3) lack of co-oi-dination of medical care |)rograms with otlier available 
public medical care in California, thus in several instances duplicating, 
contradicting or assuming existing programs. 

As a result of legislation enacted in the 1960 Session of Congress, 
California will receive an additional $18 million a year to broaden 
medical services for recipients of OAS. 

This new federal law, effective October 1, 1960, also provides for 
special grants to states on a matching basis for care of "medically 
indigent." These are aged persons who are not on relief but who are 
unable to meet the high costs of medical care. 

California does not now have a statewide program of care for these 
medically indigent older citizens. Legislation to set up such a program 
will have to be introduced during the 1961 Session. 

A medical care study made during 1959-1960 by ]\Iargaret Green- 
field, Public Administrative Analyst, at the request of the State De- 
partment of Social Welfare, is expected to evaluate the present program 
and make recommendations for desirable changes or modifications. 



The State Department of Social Welfare is guided in its supervision 
of welfare programs by policy decisions of the State Social Welfare 

The department has a central office at Sacramento whose major 
functions are program development, community welfare services, and 
administration. This office decentralizes state supervision to three area 
offices : Area I, at Los Angeles ; Area II, at San Francisco ; Area III, at 

The total central office staff for tlie year 1959-60 averaged 304 em- 
ployees ; the three area offices together, 296. 

The basic plan of organization of the central office has gone un- 
changed for a number of years, but frequent modifications and addi- 
tions have added layers that make the structure complex and confusing. 
For example: There are three medical care programs (service, drugs, 
hos]iital) operated by different divisions; these programs do not have 
uniformity of method or of criteria in establishing fees. 

The overall organization consists of an executive unit (the director, 
deputy directors, director's staff assistant, medical director, chief 
referee, asociate counsel) and five divisions, each with 4 to 10 separate 
bureaus under its authority. 

Area Offices 

The three area offices have basic structures very much alike. Each 

area is divided into districts : 

Los Angeles three districts serving 12 counties 

San Francisco three districts serving 16 counties 

Sacramento four districts serving 30 counties 

Each area is headed by an area director and has an overall repre- 
sentative for each district. Each has an administrative analyst and a 
fiscal representative. In addition there are housed in each area office, 
but responsible to the central office, a hearing officer, a medical con- 
sultant, one or more research analysts, and field auditors. 

Each area office has the following four sections : 

Public Assistance Section, employing a puhlic assistance supervisor ; public 

assistance specialists ; puhlic assistance eligibility auditors ; a section 

clerk ; a stenographer ; and an operations unit having a supervisor and 

workers on appeals and complaints. 
Child Welfare Section, employing a child welfare supervisor ; child welfare 

specialists ; a section clerk and stenographer. 
Office Management Section, supplying clerical and stenographic help to the 

area office. 
Medical Service Section, employing medical social work consultants; a 

section clerk ; a stenographer, and the temporary help of doctors as 

needed on ATD cases. 

In the Los Angeles area office there are two additional sections : 

Children's Institutional Section, staffed by child welfare specialists. 
Aged Institutional Section, staffed by public assistance specialists. 

In the San Francisco area office there is an 

Institutional Licensing Section, staffed by specialists in child welfare and 
public assistance. 


In the Sacramento area office, licensing is done by a unit under the 
Child Welfare Section. 

Partly because the area offices employ professional field staffs while 
the central office has many exclusive fiscal and statistical functions, the 
professional personnel outnumbers the clerical in the former, while the 
reverse is true in the central office. 

Payrolls 1959-60 

Professional Clerical Total 

Central office 97 207 304 

Area offices 

Los Angeles 84 52 136 

San Francisco 60 30 90 

Sacramento 42 28 70 296 

Total 283 317 600 

Costs 1959-60 

f>alaries and operation 

Central office $1,670,868.39 

Area offices 

Los Angeles 711,263.65 $130,805 

San Francisco 490,736.85 96,769 

Sacramento 382,238.82 74,892 


Altliough in tlieory the lines of a flow cliart are from State through 
area office to district office to county, in practice they careen in a sort 
of mystic maze. 

p]ach area office lias a counterpart of the staff specialists in the 
central office, but relationships are not clear, nor are lines of super- 
vision uniform. The Department of Welfare has a ])rocedural manual; 
and a detailed and good organization handbook is a part of it. This 
shows functions, authorities, responsibilities and relationships for all 
kc}'^ staff, central and area offices, but little use seems to be made of it. 
There are differences of interpretation by those away from the cen- 
tral office. When new problems come up there is a tendency to play 
by ear. Although the area district representative is expected to main- 
tain the basic administrative ties with counties, there are frequent 
exceptions to this rule. Counties are at liberty to seek help directly 
from the area offices or even the central office. And the department's 
procedural manual, while emphasizing that the area office is the channel 
from central to county, provides that the c(Mitral office people may 
deal direct. 

This situation can lead to confusion if the central office interpreta- 
tion differs even slightly from that given to a county by the district 
representative or the area office — and in any event creates the need 
of elaborate and costly "fill-ins" so that the left hand may know 
what the right is doing. 

Counties differ in their attitudes toward state supervision by area 
personnel. A few welcome it. IMost resist it. In many instances coun- 
ties feel the area "specialists" are less competent to decide* ]iarticnlar 
problems than the county staffs they are supervising. Lack of qualified 
area personnel able to give leadership to the county staff is a problem 


counties find hard to cope with. Resistance is sometimes due to the 
number of area "specialists" calling on a county. 

"One intelligent well-qualified area person could give counties the 
necessary information — this would save endless time and expense," 
one hears. 

The merit system program is administered directly from the central 

Training consultation is provided from the central office, since there 
are no training specialists in the areas. 

Some other functions, such as the handling of life care contracts, 
are also centralized. 

Research and statistics functions are carried out by staff: from the 
central office assigned to the area offices. So in effect this is a function 
of the central office. In contradiction to this, the administrative ana- 
lysts are assigned directly to the areas and function as a part of the 
area staff. 


Approximately 8,650 county welfare employees in 58 counties carry 
out the diversified and complex programs of welfare which directly 
effect the lives of over 600,000 people in California. 


The administrative organization of each county differs from others 
to some extent, with some so divergent as to defy comparison. The 
simplest plan of organization seems to be three divisions — adults; 
children's; business — but counties having this structure may assign 
different phases of work to these divisions. 

The State Department of Social Welfare does not try to secure uni- 
formity in the administrative organization of the counties. The theory 
under which it has operated for years is substantially that the "what" 
shall be specified by rule, but the "how" is left to local discretion. 

Even the titles of county welfare departments differ. One county 
lists only "Welfare Director, County Office Building." The 57 other 
counties use: County Welfare Department, 32; Department of Public 
Welfare, 9 ; Department of Social Welfare, 8 ; Social Welfare Depart- 
ment, and Social Service Department, 2 each ; Department of Public 
Health and Welfare, Public Welfare Department, County Welfare 
Commission, and Bureau of Public Assistance, 1 each. 

The statutes, and the rules and regulations of the State Social Wel- 
fare Board are the single most important means for obtaining some 
uniformity of procedure. These set out provisions for each board of 
supervisors and county welfare director to follow and are contained 
in the State Welfare Department manuals. The manuals contain 
"Handbook" material, as well. The Handbook material is not manda- 
tory, but it gives examples, or preferred methods within the discretion 
allowed by statute and rule. 

Sometimes a small change in a law can pile a heavy load on the 
whole state-county machinery. For instance, one regulation, based on 
a law, says that a recipient shall get the full amount of aid to which 
he is entitled. Formerly counties were not required to write a check 
until the amount was a minimum of $2. Now if a 6-cent refund is nee- 


essary a i-ounty must sond the I'ccipit'iit a clicck for tliis amount, oven 
thoujili the clerical work involved costs $10. 

Different counties apply statutes and rules to similar situations in 
different ways, each contendinj; that its application is correct. In- 
stances of variation come to the attention of the department in a num- 
ber of ways: through conferences of state or area staff with county 
welfare directors and local staff; by studies and reviews; appeals, com- 
plaints or statements by applicants, recipients, or other interested 
persons or <j:rouj)s. When these situations are discovered, the state 
staff (rives its interpretation of rule and regulation and asks the county 
to follow this interpretation. If the county does not conform, the 
department cites the couny to show why state and federal funds 
should not be withheld. 

The State permits continuance of certain wide differences in pro- 
cedure, in the handlinjr of AXC absent-father cases. In some counties 
these cases are routinely referred to the district attorney's office for 
investifration. In others the welfare department does the invest ij^atinof. 
jMoney collected from absent fathers nuiy be handed over directly to 
the mother by the welfare department, which then deducts the amount 
from her ANC {jrant ; or may be credited to the bookkeeping: fund 
from which federal, state and county payments can be reimbursed. Or 
the money from the absent father may be received, in the first in- 
stance, by the district attorney or the probation department and then 
paid to the mother directly or through the welfare depaitment. 

Genera/ Relief 

There is a myriad of reasons why welfare costs differ in the various 
counties: economic condition of the county, att'ecting the attitude of 
the board of supervisors toward welfare recipients; resources available 
to the recipients ; distances to he covered in dealing with applicants ; 
variations in costs of rent, and utilities, and the degrees of complexity 
(necessary and unnecessary) of administration. 

Nowhere are the differences more apparcMit than in geuci-al relief, 
the ])rogram financed entirely by each county. Here the county has 
virtually carte blanche. 

Some but not all of the coiinty welfare departments have manuals 
or sets of resolutions, drawn up by their boards of supervisors, to fol- 
low in administering general iclief. Occasionally it is not readily 
apparent that these guideposts are followed in detail. 

The oH counties have 08 varieties of general relief programs — and 
in most of them the standards for general relief fall below tiie mini- 
mum standards for any of the categorical aid programs. 

In general those eligible for geniM-al iclief fall into one of the follow- 
ing groups: 

1. Needy elderly jiersons wlio are aliens and uiieiiiployable. or who 
have not yet attained the age of (if). 

2. Physically or mentally incapacitated j)(M'sous luit eligible for cate- 
gorical aids. 

3. Applicants for oiu' of the categorical aids who need assistaiu-e 
while their eligibilitv is being determined. 

subcom;mittee on welfare costs 25 

4. Needy employable person.s (single or family) who are temporarily 
in need of aid. 

5. Needy transients. 

Some counties restrict eligibility almost entirely to nnemployables 
and give only emergency or seasonal aid to employables. They call 
the unemployable group the "hard core" of the general relief loads. 

There are definite seasonal trends in the general relief program, 
especially where agriculture predominates. Also, because of crop 
cycles, tliis trend varies in different parts of the State. Any large- 
scale unemployment, such as factory layoffs whether seasonal or not, 
tends to increase a county's general relief load. 

The employable person applying for aid is referred to county work 
projects — where these exist — or to the state employment office, or 
may be referred directly to a job that someone in the welfare office 
knows of. 

Where general relief is necessary, a few counties give cash grants 
plus a grocery order ; many confine aid to grocery orders only ; some 
combine grocery orders with surplus commodities. County welfare 
departments operating commissaries give orders on the commissary for 
food and, if needed and in stock, for clothing and such articles as 
towels, sheets, blankets and occasionally, a mattress or other house- 
hold furnishing. Some counties depend on private donations of clothing 
to supply general relief recipients, and a few give clothing orders. 

Poorer counties provide less aid and are more restrictive in deter- 
mining eligibility. When local financial pressures increase, restrictions 
are tightened — so that when the needs of people increase, general as- 
sistance grants become less adequate. 

Though the categorical aid programs have been liberalized over the 
past 10 years, general relief standards set many years ago have not 
increased appreciably ; so there is wide contrast between the aid 
granted a family on general relief and one receiving aid to needy 
children; for example: in one county a general relief family gets an 
average grant of $22 per person for the month, whereas an ANC fam- 
ily receives $42 per person per month plus an average of $2.80 per 
person for medical care. 

Counties vary in the length of time they provide general relief. In 
some counties it is "as long as the family is in need and employment 
is not available." In some, two weeks or a month is the limit. It is by 
no means rare for an applicant to be told, if he is a transient: "Here's 
enough for 10 gallons of gas to take you out of this county." 


In the four categorical aid programs, where the county receives 
federal and state matching money, and in the programs where it gets 
state aid, there also is a marked variation in county contribution. 

A considerable difference among connty "special needs" policies is 
partly responsible ; and another big factor is the giving or denial of 
"supplemental aid" — over and above the amount that is .shared by 
federal and/or state. 

In some counties the county supervisors vigorously oppose using 
county money for supplementation ; here supplementation may run 


as low as $10 to $30 total county outlay for a month, or even zero, 
while otlior counties with comparable population and caseloads may 
supplement to a total extent of $5,000 to $35,000 a month. 

In .June, liHiO, supplemental aid by all counties for tlie four cate- 
gorical aid programs reached a total of $343,284. The range was from 
zero in some counties to a high of $73,399 in ANC cases, and from 
zero to a high of $53,573 in Old Age Security. 

Caseloads and Costs 

There is so much talk of welfare caseloads and costs that one might 
think the one was a direct determinant of the other. Not so. The two 
are related, but not in easily understood fashion. There are no State- 
set standards or measuring sticks for caseloads in the county offices. 

In each county the cost per case for the different categorical aids 
varies. The largest proportion of the total costs is for OAS and ANC. 
But the highest cost per ease is for the Aid to Totally Disabled pro- 

As among counties, the cost per case for any category varies for 
reasons we have seen. The least cost-per-case dilference among counties 
is in the OAS program, but even this is 54 percent higher in some 
counties than in others. 

The number of cases a social worker carries runs all the way from 
140 to 260 in OAS ; 25 to 100 in ANC ; 12 to 100 in AB ; 2 to 25 in 
ATD. And it runs from 75 to 170 in General llelief. The average time 
taken by counties for processing a case from the filing of the applica- 
tion until the applicant receives his first check runs from 10 to 45 
days in OAS; from 10 to 60 days in ANC; from 27 to 45 in AB ; 
sometimes six months in ATD. 

Many elements intiuence the size of a caseload per worker. In some 
counties the total number of recipients receiving aid in a specific 
category justifies a worker having a specialized group of cases (all 
OAS, or all ANC, etc.) In counties with smaller numbers of recipients 
one worker may carry two or more of the categorical aids plus general 
relief; and if geographical location of recipients is a problem, one 
worker may handle all the categorical aid cases plus general relief 
cases for an area that is remote or hard to reach. 

The content of the social worker's job changes from time to time — 
duties are added or taken away as changes are made in the law, in 
organization of the office, in policies regarding home visits, in frequency 
of recertifications, and in other methods of Avork. All this affects the 
caseload per worker. 

The amount of time a worker devotes to telephone calls, letter Avrit- 
ing, office contacts or outside visits pertaining to a case, fiuctuates 
widely — although the actual number of days a worker spends in the 
office and in the field is fairly constant among the counties — two days 
in the field ; three in the office, is the general pattern. 

Some offices use trained social workers for processes handled in other 
offices by clerical help. In some, the social worker sees the aid applicant 
immediately; in others, by appointment later in tlie office or at his home. 

In many offices the social worker spends much time doing paper 
work. A large part of this is the filling out of forms prescribed by the 
State Welfare Department; part is the handling of forms adopted by 


the county for its own use. One county welfare department handles 
altogether 1,000 forms. 

A record is kept of each case. The social worker may dictate case- 
record material to a stenographer direct or via dictaphone; or she 
may type her own records, or may write records in longhand for a 
stenographer to type. 

Depending partly on the quality of her supervision, she may pro- 
duce narrative records that are too long and repetitious, or too sketch}' 
to be of much use; or she may do a competent job, telling the story 
clearly and concisely, without repeating all details already recorded 
on forms. 

In some counties there is a routine bank and property check on all 
OAS and/or ANC and GR cases. In other counties no check is made 
or made only on certain cases. The checking may be done by: (1) 
social worker, (2) a clerical staff member, (3) special property and 
bank staff member, (4) by mail. 

Caseload per worker is not an accurate measure of either amount 
or quality of work accomplished with the recipients. Quality of work 
done depends upon the ability, knowledge and training of the worker ; 
quantity of work depends upon responsibilities of the worker other 
than direct casework with the clients. 

Usually administrative costs are lowest where caseloads are highest. 
However, low caseloads do not necessarily mean a better job is being 
done with clients. The low-cost-per-case county is not necessarily the 
most efficiently handled, since this may reflect poor service with a 
possibility of increased caseloads at a later date. 

A county with high administrative cost can argue that it reflects 
greater service to the recipient and is thus justified. This is an in- 
tangible factor and is a difficult contention to argue with. Counties 
with the highest administrative costs per case month, and the lowest 
case loads, seem to provide for a greater range of recipient needs; 
greater recognition of individual problems; more elaborate procedures 
for establishing eligibility and the amount of grant, more frequent 
visits with a consequence of more changes in grants. 

Child Services 

In some counties services to children are much more extensive than 
in others. Services are given not only to the child who is without the 
protection and care of his own family, but also to the child living with 
his family under conditions that thwart health, educational or 
emotional development. In addition to finding and licensing boarding 
homes (day-care and full-time), workers give counsel to families, as- 
sist the child with behaviour problems, and help interpret to the com- 
munity the economic and social hazards that threaten family security. 

Despite interdepartmental agreements between the County Welfare 
Department and the Probation Department in regard to the type of 
services each department will provide, in all but a few counties there 
remain overlapping, duplication, and lack of co-ordination of methods 
and procedures in the services. This is especially true in cases of the 
delinquent child on an ANC grant. 

In some counties children who are court wards (delinquent, depend- 
ent, or neglected) and eligible for ANC are placed in foster homes and 

28 ASSE^n{LY ways and means committee 

receive supervision hy tlie ])r()batioii department. In other counties, 
(leliiKjuent ehiUlreii elijrible for AXC are i)laee(l and supervised by the 
l)robation department, and the negleeted and dependent ehildren, some 
of whom may be wards of the court, are under supervision of the wel- 
fare department. In a few counties all children receiving assistance 
under A\C, whether dependent, neglected or delinquent, are placed 
and su])ervised by the welfare department. 

Tyi)es of shelter care for children who are deliiKpient. dependent or 
neglected, vary widely among the counties. They range from cjuarters 
in juvenile hall, jail, county hospital, to special receiving homes and 
subsidized foster homes. 

Boarding Homes 

Counties have responsibility for one servic(^ which is not giving as- 
sistance — i.e., licensing and supervision of boarding homes for children 
and adults. Tn l)()th pi-ograms basic rates in boarding iiomes vary among 
the counties. 

Board and care rates for recipients of OAS aid vary from $60 to 
$250 in the different counties. If the cost of care in boarding home 
exceeds the OAS recipient's grant and income (which he controls and 
pa3's to the operator) some counties supplement with county funds up 
to $150 a month, the maximum set by the State as a standard amount. 
In unusual circumstances a county may be obliged to pay more than 
the standard rate, sometimes as high as $250 a month. 

Basic rates established by the counties, in boarding homes for chil- 
dren vary from $45 to $85 among the 58 counties. This variation is 
due to several factors : 

(1) Many counties ])ay a higlier than basic rate for children with 
special problems, physical, mental or emotional. 

(2) In some counties, the basic rates inclnde necessary clothing; in 
other counties, the rate is supplemented by a clothing allowance. 

(3) Age of child is a factor in most counties — but in setting up food 
schedules, counties differ in their age/sex groupings of children. 

(4) Larger counties tend to establish rates by ordinance; smaller 
counties lend to bargain. 

The State Department of Social W(>lfare does not set a standard of 
assistance in the boarding home j)i"ogram of ANC as it does in the 
family program. The state department may delegate the function of 
licensing boai'ding homes to county welfare departments, in which case 
it reimburses the county from the (Jeneral Fund for full costs up to a 
limit of $()5 per new or renewal license issued. 

The State Welfare Depai'tment also has the authority to license 
county welfare departments to do either or both tyi)es of adoption pro- 
gram : (1) relin(iui.shment adoptions, (2) independent adoptions, and 
reimburses the county for administi-ation and cost of preliminary care 
in adoption cases, from the Ceneral Fund. The adoption program is 
supervised and controlled by the State Department of Social Welfare. 



hi sonic coniitii^s t];e size of total staff depends on the size of case- 
loads, ill otlie.s on the aiiiouiit of funds available. 

The ratio of professional to clerical woikers in the county welfare 
departments varie,-; from 1:8 to 1:4; among the professional workers 
the ratio of supervisors to social workers varies from 1 : 2 to 1 : 8.5. 

The average ta'.e paid caseworkers and casework supervisors in coun- 
ties is highest in the Los Angeles area; lowest in the Sacramento area. 
Staff turnover, however, does not vary greatly among the counties in 
the three areas. It is about one-fourth to one-third of total staff per 
year. This high turnover does not seem to be due entirely to low salaries, 
although that certainly ente.s into the situation. It takes about six 
months for a new worker to learn the basic factors relating to eligibility 
and deiermination of grants, because of the complexity of laws and 
rules under which a county office must operate. If, because of large 
waiting uncovered caseloads, a new, untrained worker is required to 
take on a considerable amount of responsibility for coping with behavior 
and marital problems, in addition to economic dependency, of appli- 
cants for aid, the worker may decide this job is too frustrating, and 
decide to go into some other field of work offering quicker opportunity 
for personal satisfaction in a job completed. 

The lack of workers trained in social work techniques is one of the 
serious problems of county welfare departments. Social work training, 
while not the ansAver to all welfare problems, does enable an intelligent 
worker to do a better job of rehabilitation and guidance toward restor- 
ing aid recipients to self-maintenance. 

In many county agencies the staff is largely made up of mature people 
who have families and live in the community. They may be former 
teachers, nurses, businessmen or women, but seldom more than 1 per- 
cent are graduate social workers. The wonder is that some of the offices 
can perform as well as they do. If workers could acquire well-planned, 
sound training in social welfare there is not much doubt that the cost 
of such training would be more than offset by the saving in aid paj^- 
ments alone, to say nothing of other advantages not so easily measur- 
able in dollars and cents. 


The cost to a county for training each new social worker has been 
A^ariously estimated by counties at from $500 to $1,800. This is a con- 
siderable amount to invest in a person who does not remain with the 
county welfare department more than a year or two. 

The State Department of Social Welfare has no funds available for 
public assistance scholarships or professional training of caseworkers. 
However, the federal government offers two opportunities for training : 

(1) It gives a limited number of scholarships on child welfare 
service funds. In California 66 such scholarships were awarded to 
county public assistance workers in the past five years (September, 
1954, to September, 1959). 

(2) The federal government matches state funds on a 50-50 basis 
to grant "leave with pay" to provide professional education for mem- 
bers of countv welfare staff's. Onlv two counties have availed themselves 


of this help, for a total of six employees. In several cases well-qualified 
workers offered educational leave with pay under this plan were unable 
to accept because they could not fulfill Welfare and Institutions Code 
Section 300 requiring: bond to {guarantee their return to their county 
agency for two years or refund the salary paid them on leave. 

Approximately 250 caseworkers have taken time from their jobs 
and financed their additional education themselves during this five- 
year period. 


Los Angeles County is, of, subject to all the complexities of 
law and regulation that govern welfare administration in the 19 
smaller counties surveyed. And it has had to add its own complex of 
welfare administration. 

Yet, by and large, it has dealt very skillfully with its immense prob- 
lem and is constantly striving for improvement. 

Los Angeles County, with 38.4 percent (6,078,130) of the State's 
population, handles 40 percent of California welfare disbursements. 
One out of every 24 of its residents receives some form of public as- 
sistance (April, 1960). 

The bureau of public assistance, as the county welfare department 
is called, has 15 district offices and nine subdistrict offices through 
which it decentralizes aid for the convenience of applicants. Each of 
the 15 district offices handles more recipients per month than the 
monthly caseload of each of 30 of the 58 California counties. 

Only four states in the nation have more recipients of Old Age 
Security or Aid to the Blind than does Los Angeles County, though 
29 states have a higher number of Aid to Needy Children recipients. 

Los Ange/es County Costs 

In fi.scal 1958-59 Los Angeles spent $195,766,455 for welfare pro- 
grams, financed thus: 

Foderal $83,819,073 (42.8%) 

State 72.084,059 (36.8%) 

County 39,8(j3,323 (20.3%) 

Of the grand total, administration took $21.011.429 — 10.73 percent. 
Vnd of this amount salaries of employees (3,483 in June, 1959) ac- 
rounted for $15,706,838. 

The estimated annual cost per case of administering welfare pro- 
grams during the fiscal year 1958-1959 is shown in the following table : 

Administrative Costs— Fiscal Year 1958-1959 

.1 nil Kill rtist A tiuiial cost 

administration per case 

Old \ko Socm-it.v $7,349,909 $.5.52 

Aid to Noody Blind 538.598 7.39 

Aid to P;irtiall.v Self-supportijiR Blind 8,747 7.69 

Aid to Needy Cliildron- Family Groups 7.132,779 24.03 

Aid til Notdv Childicn — Boarding Homes and 

Institutions 233,34<i 6.61 per child 

Aid to Totally Disabled 1,574,471 51.07 * 

(Jenoral Relief 4,173,579 20.91 

* Unrealistic cost, due to lack of time for stabilization of new proBram. 



The total per capita cost of welfare in Los Angeles County for the 
fiscal year 1958-1959 was $32.98. 

The State Medical Care Program increased public assistance dis- 
bursements in Los Angeles County by $15,000,000, and raised admin- 
istrative costs by $1,000,000. The increases in grants to aged and blind 
effective in January, 1960, increased disbursements in Los Angeles 
County some $7,000,000. 

Program costs for the mouth of June, 1960, were as follows : 

Program Costs— Month of June, 1960 


monthly County 
Recipients Expenditures aid supplemental 

OAS 102,435 $9,259,316 78.46 $387 


Children 64,032 

Relatives 18,391 

FG (cases) 23,859 3,393,632 (Per child 54.13) 73,394 

(Per case 151.48) 

BH 3,530 315,995 73.87 52,183 

AB 5,351 573,712 100.63 108 

APSB 71 7,806 112.56 

ATD 3,394 299,074 85.92 1,533 

GR 19,242 729,582 49.04 191,539* 

538,046 t 
* Aid in kind, 
t Aid iu cash. 

Additional expenditures under County General Relief: 

Boarding home care (Adults $42,028) Trans. $6,442 

(Children 12,157) 
Transient 143 Other 7,935 

County supplementation is primarily in ANC. Supplemental needs 
in this category have been as high as $100,000 in one month. 


The county's welfare director, headquartered at the central adminis- 
trative office, is assisted in his work of direction by five assistants and 
various divisions: Administrative Service Division, Blind Division, 
Child Welfare Services Division, Training Division, Medical Care Divi- 
sion, Special Services Division. Expert help iu each of these divisions is 
an advantage that many of California's counties do not enjoy. 

The Child Welfare Services Division, for example, besides having a 
central director and assistant director, has supervisors of child welfare 
in nine district offices. There are altogether 88 child welfare w^orkers, 
all well qualified. This division is directing a two-to-three-year pilot 
study in one district office to determine the county's need for protec- 
tive services and how they can best be given. The county supervisors 
put up $32,000 a year for this study, which began April 1, 1958. The 
study staff includes a supervisor, three child welfare workers and two 
clerical workers, and the caseloads are limited to 20 families per worker. 

The Training Division with a director and nine training supervisors, 
plans, co-ordinates and carries out the various training programs for 
the total personnel of the Public Assistance Bureau. Its inservice train- 
ing includes orientation for newly employed workers. The division also 


gWos field supervision to <ria(hiate and uii<ler<'ia(lnatc students of soeial 
welfare in ei<rht local universities and eolle<res. 

The Medical Care Division has a staff of consultant doctors from 
medicine, osteo]iathy, chiropractic and dentistry. These consultants, 
under the supervision of a medical director, review bills submitted by 
some 7,500 participating? practitioners to inspire that the treatment paid 
for from the ^Medical Care Fund is in confoi-mity with ethical practice. 
They work closely with their professional associations. Durinji: the 1958- 
1959 fiscal year, the ]\Iedical Care Division i-eviewed api)roximatel3' 
2i million statements and pi-escriptions, and ]iaid 15 million dollars 
from the Medical Care Fund. Each month 2()().0()() bills and prescrip- 
tions are received from some 7,000 doctors and 1,500 j)harmacies. Each 
month 1] million dollars for treatment and supplies is j^aid on behalf 
of ()0,000 i)ersons. 

A Biiriaii of Adoptions established as a separate ajrency in 1949 
by the board of supervisors ])rovides services for the entire county 
throufrh a main office and two branch offices. This bureau handles both 
independent adoptions and reliiKpiishments. The relin(|uishment pro- 
fifram offers counseling to parents considering whether to let their child 
be adopted; cares for the child pending final decisiou; places the child 
in a carefully selected home. The inde})endent adoption program studies 
each family jietitioning to adopt a child placed by, or at the direction 
of the natural parent, reports to the superior court the facts in the case 
and the oi)inion of the bui-eau as to whether an adoption should be 

During fiscal 1958-1959 the reliufpiishment progi'am accepted for 
stud}' 1,190 mothers and children. In the inde])endent adoption pro- 
gram 1,402 petitions were recommended for approval. The cost of 
independent adoptions was $276,196. This expenditure was reimbursed 
by the State Department of Social Welfare. 

Fees totaling $129,656 were collected from adopting jiai'i'iits and 
applied against administrative expenses of the bureau. 

The placement of hard-to-place children is one of the outstanding 
functions of this agency. These are children with physical haiKlicai)s, 
older children, and children of minority groups, many of whom for- 
merly were cared for in paid boarding homes dependent upon public 
support during their lifetime, or until th<\v were able to earn enough 
to support themselves. 

Tjicensing of boarding homes and institutions for childi'en and adults 
is delegated by the State Department to the Rui'eau of Licensing ad- 
ministered by the Los Angeles County Charities. 

The Bureau of Public Assistance maintains a central clothing office 
in Los Angeles. Aid recipients in need of clothing can go to the store 
and select it, then order it sent to the district office for him or have 
it sent to his home (welfare pays the postage). The maintenance of this 
central clothing office, instead of the issuance of clothing orders u.sable 
at clothing stores in the applicants' home di.stricts, has raised some 
feasibility (piestions in the minds of some in the bureau. 

There is considerable variation among the 15 district offices in the 
methods used in processing welfare cases. The variation is not extreme, 
however, when differences in caseloads, size of staffs, location and com- 
munity makeup are allowed for. There appears to be unif(u-m agree- 


ment on interpretation of rnles and regulations and on other informa- 
tion issued to district offices by the central organization. There also 
seems to be uniform equity in the Avay applicants are treated. 

General Relief 

Los Angeles County leans to the generous side in its general relief 
program. The general relief family budget, set up by the Administra- 
tive Services Division and approved by the board of supervisors, is 
similar to the ANC budget. 

Recipients who are unable to handle cash get aid in kind : that is, 
grocery orders, clothing orders, direct payments of rent to landlords. 
Single, unattached needy men are given meal and lodging tickets or 
sent to one of the camps — ^AVarm Springs or Acton — that provide cus- 
todial care and rehabilitation. 

During the 1958-59 fiscal year 138,620 grocery orders were issued. 
These were handled through direct teletype with the larger district 
offices, enabling the recipient to receive his order in person immedi- 
ately and giving simultaneous record to the central accounting office 
where orders must be processed for payment to vendors. 

Indigent nonresidents receive aid pending return to legal residejice 
outside the county ; 2,386 persons were returned to their places of legal 
residence during 1958-59. 

For residents there is no time limit on general relief, but the recipi- 
ent must repay any amount he receives. 

Every employable applicant is expected to continue to search for 
private employment. Pending that, as a condition of receiving aid, 
he is required to work on a work project. Work projects have the dual 
purpose of keeping the indigent from being idle and of helping to 
establish work habits and self-respect. Fifty-four work projects were 
operated in 1958-59 in connection wath other county departments and 
bureaus : roads, parks and recreation, probation, library, hospitals and 
so on; they were noncompetitive and did not replace civil service 

When an employable is granted general relief he receives lunch 
money and money for transportation to the project for two weeks. For 
every hour he works he earns $1.25 ; and the amount he owes general 
relief is deducted from his paycheck. As long as he is jobless he may 
work on a project as many days per month as his GR budget calls for 
— up to 17 days per month. 

Paper Work 

Paper work in the Los Angeles County district welfare offices is 
costly and time-consuming. There are now over 1,000 forms to be filled 
out in various phases of the programs. The local administrator has 
tried to simplify procedures, and has made surprising savings against 
the increasing weight of regulatory instructions from above. 

He keeps operations under constant analysis from an organization 
and methods standpoint. By improved systems and procedures the 
bureau has been able to eliminate 203 positions, mainly clerical, in the 
last five years; the accumulated saving on this alone has been estimated 
at $1,500,000. 


At the same time services to clients have been increased by simplifi- 
cation and speeding up. The Administrative Services Division is adapt- 
ing electronic data-processing to welfare operations to further reduce 
administrative costs. 

One of the problems of cost stems from the need, under present law 
and regulations, to make numerous changes of grant from month to 
month. Approximately 500,000 changes of grant were processed in 
Los Angeles County in fiscal 1959-60. 

A staff official comments: "Assuming the administrative cost of these 
actions to be $10 per change, it is readily apparent that upwards of 
!i>5,000,000 per year is consumed by a process which amounts to nothing 
more than increasing or decreasing recipients' grants by relatively 
nominal amounts. ' ' 


Tliere is almost 100 percent agreement among county welfare di- 
rectors that major redirection of public welfare programs nuist take 
place if they are to meet the criticisms now being leveled at these pro- 
grams, including criticisms which directors themselves voice. 

Several experimental studies are now going on in county welfare 
departments, and directors watch these with interest. They are not 
content, however, to wait for the outcome of these before testing other 
possibilities also. 

So we find the interest of a number of directors as well as legislators 
stimulated by a proposal, by Dr. Donald Howard, now referred to as 
the Unified AVelfare Plan. 

The proposal, made to this Subcommittee on Welfare Costs, was that 
a state fund be established to encourage counties in developing projects 
to demonstrate the feasibility and desirability of unified public assist- 
ance and social welfare services. 

Impressed by the interest shown in the Unified Welfare Plan, the 
chairman of this subconunittee asked a number of people to participate 
in a public discussion in Los Angeles, June 22, 1960, for the purpose 
of getting a clear idea of what needed to be considered with a view to 
drawing up enabling legislation for the 1961 Session of the Legi.slature. 

The discussion was more or less along the lines proposed in the Uni- 
fied Welfare Plan for setting up pilot studies in a few counties if that 
seemed advisable. 

The Director of the State Department of Social Welfare; tlie Chair- 
man of the Social Welfare Board ; representatives of the County Super- 
visors ' Association, and of the California Taxpayers' Association; the 
president of the County Welfare Directors' Association Avere among 
those taking part in the discussion. 

There seemed to be general agreement that there is need for im- 
provement in our public Avelfare system. Can Ave save money Avithout 
injury to our present program? Can Ave have a better program at no 
increase in cost? Can Ave haA'e a very much better program that Avould 
mean some extra cost at the start but a great possible saving, by pre- 
A'entive social action, in the future? 


Until such time as the Unified Welfare Plan has been tested in Cali- 
fornia, we have no way of knowino- tlie possible advanta<>es or disad- 
\anta<>'es of sncli a plan, and nntil it has been studied on sneh a prac- 
tical basis we cannot draw valid conclusions as to its merit. 

Therefore, it was decided to ask a number of especially interested 
counties to advance specific snf>-<>'estions for pilot or demonstration 
studies, with a thorough understanding Avorked out by the county di- 
rectors and county supervisors as to who Avill bear the cost, state 
and or county ; type of controls necessary ; staffing patterns in the 
('ounty welfare office (will additional staff be needed, or merely redi- 
rection of present staff?). 

The county supervisors in the selected counties have been asked to 
appoint their county welfare director, to serve on a committee to evalu- 
ate the feasibility of the Unified Welfare Plan, and develop for the con- 
sideration of the Subcommittee on Welfare Costs a detailed and specific 
plan for the conduct of such pilot or demonstration projects. 

printed in California state printing office 
r.-2lr,9 12-60 IM 



JESSE M. UNRUH, Chairman 








LARRY MARGOLIS, Commiffee Consuliant 
MARION CERRELL, Commiffee Secretary 
LAWRENCE W. FISHER, Legislative /nfern 

December, 1960 
Published by the 



Speafcer Speofcer pro Tempore 


Majority Floor Leader Minority Floor Leader 

Chief Cleric 


Assembly Interim Committee on Ways and Means 

Sacramento, January 2, 1961 
Honorable Ralph M. Brown 
Speaker of the Assenibly and 

Honorable Members of the Assembly 

Assembly Chambers, Sacramento, California 

Gentlemen : Enclosed is the report on Educational Television in 
California Higher Education prepared in accordance with the provi- 
sions of House Resolution 326.24 by the Subcommittee on Educational 
Television of the Assembly Interim Committee on Ways and Means. 

I urge that the Legislature give careful attention to the recommenda- 
tions contained herein. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jesse M. Unruh, Chairman 



Assembly, California Legislature 

Sacramento, January 2, 1961 
Honorable Jesse M. Unruh 

Chairman, the Assembly Interim 
Committee on Ways and Means 
California Legislature 

Dear Mr. Unruh : Pursuant to your directive and in conformance 
with action taken by the Waj-s and Means Committee in reference to 
Items 84, 86 and 90 of the State Budget during the 1960 Budget Ses- 
sion, the Subcommittee on the Costs of Educational Television herewith 
submits its report on Educational Television in California Higher 

Contained herein are recommendations concerning the use of televi- 
sion in public institutions of higher learning. Also contained herein is 
an account of the hearing which was held to examine into what uses 
have been made of educational television in California in the past and 
what projects educators feel should be designed for educational televi- 
sion in the future. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Charles J. Conrad, Chairman 

William A. Munnell John L. E. Collier 

Carlos Bee Pauline L. Davis 

Thomas J. MacBride 



The Master Plan for Higher Education which the State Legislature 
approved during the 1960 session points up the fact that within the 
next six years college enrollments will double in California. The role 
which television will play in meeting the problems posed by this scho- 
lastic explosion is only now beginning to emerge in the State. 

Since 1955 experiments have been conducted in a few institutions to 
determine the efficacy of Educational Television. Out of these experi- 
ments has come a point upon which almost everyone involved in educa- 
tion agrees: television can he used to teach. The results of these experi- 
ments have indicated that in most presentation courses televised instruc- 
tion is at least as effective as conventional instruction. 

Thus television may be a means through which faculty resources will 
be better utilized in the state's educational institutions. Present trends 
indicate that in the future fewer and fewer qualified instructors will 
be available to teach the ever-increasing number of students who are 
going to be involved in California higher education. If television will 
enable one instructor to lecture to 400 students at a time — and lecture 
effectively — this would be a more efficient use of his talents than eight 
lectures to classes of 50 students each and would certainly be preferable 
to limiting the courses 's enrollment because of the lack of available 
instructors to teach it. 

This should not imply that television would be used to replace the 
teacher. Rather, television can supplement his work and make it pos- 
sible to ease the demands for additional qualified instructors who will 
be more and more difficult to find as the demand for them increases. No 
facult}^ member presentlj^ employed, however, would find his position 
in jeopardy because of television. Neither will ETV eliminate the 
future need for qualified instructors, but, if used wisely, it may help 
to close the gap between the number of faculty needed by our State 
institutions and the number which will be available. 


2— L-2606 


The Subcommittee on the costs of Educational Television, in its study 
of the role ETV should play in California higher education, attempted 
to learn what problems were involved in educational television and gave 
particular attention to the cost factors which must be considered by the 
State before undertaking wholesale ETV operations in public institu- 
tions of higher learning. 

A hearing was held at San Jose State College on October 13, 1960, 
to learn the views of representatives of the 18 state colleges in Cali- 
fornia as well as those of representatives of the University of California 
and Los Angeles City College, both of which have conducted experi- 
ments in educational television. Members of the staff of the Department 
of p]ilucation also testified about tlie State program for ETV and its 
projection for the future. 



From the testimony at the hearing and other background material 
secured from foundations and institutions throughout the country, the 
subcommittee has concluded that television should play an important 
role in higher education. To do this it must be used wisely in courses 
where it can be effective. It should be an instrument for teaching a suffi- 
cient number of students so that its cost is kept down to a point where 
it will effect a savings in the per-student cost of education in California. 

The subcommittee was impressed by the many possibilities which 
ETV holds for experimentation with new ideas in presenting educa- 
tion. Educational television is in a particularly favorable position to 
explore new fields and methods in the communication of ideas and 
learning. This experimentation should be continued by the various 
institutions which have and will liave television equipment and, where 
possible, it should be broadened and new areas and techniques should 
be explored. 

The subcommittee agreed, however, that the development of ETV 
has been somewhat stultified by the lack of any overall plan for its 
use in California. Much has been done individually by various schools 
in an experimental vein, but an organized program of priorities has 
not yet been established. The subcommittee concluded that the experi- 
mentation was valuable and should be continued, but State schools 
must now move ahead under an organized program through which they 
can more fully utilize the television equipment which may be made 
available to them. 




Recommendation: Television should be introduced gradually into a 
school's curriculum and no attempt should be made to apply it imme- 
diately iu all classes. It would appear that not all courses can easily 
be adapted for television (see below). Therefore, a set of <>eueral 
criteria should be drawn up at each school which can be used to deter- 
mine whether or not a new course can be taught effectively via ETV. 

Reason: ETVs success is dependent upon careful planning by both 
the administration and faculty of a college in order that it may gain 
acceptance by faculty and students as a responsible educational pro- 
cedure. It must be integrated into the curriculum in a manner which 
will extend the quality of teaching. At one junior college the Presi- 
dent attempted to introduce a comprehensive program of filmed tele- 
vision courses without a proper period of faculty orientation. Violent 
objections against this program were raised by the faculty. Ultimately, 
the school's president resigned and the program at the school was 
greatly curtailed. 

In addition, television must fit the character of the course. Such 
classes as freshman English, mathematics, psychology and basic courses 
in the curricula have been very effective when taught by ETV. Other 
upper division classes which involve classroom discussion as a vital 
factor have been less effective when taught by television. As one wit- 
ness put it, "There are many courses which can be handled entirely 
by television, but in each case it is false economy to apjily television 
arbitrarily to any given course of instruction until you know Avhat 
would be the proper balance between the several methods of instruc- 

Recommendation: In order to justify financially the use of a complex 
Educational Television system, the use of television normally should 
be limited to courses in which at least 200 students are enrolled. 

Reason : Studies in various universities across the country have shown 
that the economic advantage of using television begins with classes of 
about 200 students aiul increases progressively from this point as the 
number of students in TV sections increases. The cost of teaching 
fewer than 100 students by television is much higher than by conven- 
tional procedures. 

In addition, the growing acceptance of television has changed many 
of the old ideas about "fixed .student-teacher ratios." Recent studies 
have shown that students do well on examinations and iu many eases 
better if taught in larger classes by i<np<rior 1 each ( vs. Thus the old 
shibboleth that the only good class(>s are those Avith a limited enrolhnent 
would not seem to hold true. What can be verified is that the quality 



of the teacher is the i)arainount eonsideratioii. As one educator, Dr. 
Alvin 0. Eurieli of the Ford Foundation put it, "It is hard to imagine 
anything- more stultifying than a bad teacher in a small class." 

Recommendation: The State Purchasing Department should retain 
an expert who has a detailed knowledge of television equipment to 
handle the purchasing of television components for State institutions 
of higher learning and to recommend the type of equipment which 
would best fit each school's program. 

Reason: In the past, there has been no central purchasing of televi- 
sion e([uipment. Thus, the State has not been able to effect the maximum 
economy Avhich comes with central purchasing for all schools and de- 
partments. Witnesses testified that "the schools would have benefited 
had there been an expert buyer available to choose the equipment." 
The use of such an expert would also tend to insure a greater com- 
patibility of television equipment because central purchasing would 
secure various component parts of the same type which would then be 
interchangeable. In addition, he would be able to keep abreast of the 
market and thus avoid securing equipment which would rapidly become 

Recommendation: The agent who is responsible for the purchasing 
of television equipment should, at present, restrict state buying of 
closed-circuit equipment to Vidicon television cameras. 

In the future, some schools may wish to undertake open circuit 
broadcasting. An endeavor of this type should be limited to a very few 
schools Avhose geographic location, equipment and enrollment might 
make their situation peculiarly ideal for open circuit broadcasting. In 
such cases the use of Image Orthicon equipment might then be justified. 

Reason: Two types of equipment currently are available — Vidicon 
and Image Orthicon. Of the two the Image Orthicon is far costlier. 
In experiments with closed-circuit television in several colleges and 
universities it has been proven that Vidicon cameras now available are 
entirely satisfactory for closed-circuit educational uses as well as for 
open-circuit broadcasting, kinescope recording and the presentation of 
motion pictures. Because economy is a prime factor in State budgeting, 
it is inadvisable to spend a considerable amount of money for equip- 
ment which would only slightly improve TV broadcasting in a college's 
television operation. 


Recommendation: Section 11251 of the State Education Code should 
be revised in order to permit state apportionment funds to be paid to 
junior colleges for students who may be taking classes taught via educa- 
tional television without a certified teacher actually being in the room 
with each class. This revision would apply to local elementary and 
secondary schools as well. 

Reason: It has been adequately demonstrated that students can learn 
from televised instruction in large class groups without a certified 
teacher being physically present in the room. One of the long range 
purposes of introducing television into our schools as a teaching tool 


is to alleviate the constantly spiraling costs of education. If it is neces- 
sary to have a paid, certified teacher in each classroom receiving a 
broadcast via ETV, this not only -will greatly increase the cost of using 
the medium, but it also will vitiate a most important asset: TV's ability 
to extend the teaching talents of one instructor from a single studio to 
several classrooms simultaneously. 


Recommendation: The University of California has budgeted funds 
for educational television on both its Berkeley and Los Angeles cam- 
puses. Because of its greater emphasis on graduate courses — which 
are more complex and therefore need a high level of classroom discus- 
sion — the University sliould continue its efforts to use television where 
it can improve the quality of a course — and in lower division classes 
where large numbers of stndents are enrolled in general courses in 
which television can be used effectively as the primary means of 

The University, through the Coordinating Council for Higher Edu- 
cation, should also make available to other State institutions of higher 
learning wliatever filmed television resources it may develop which 
could be of value to these other schools. 

Reason: There are many courses where television can be used as a 
teaching aid rather than as the total means of instruction. Examples 
are courses in medicine, where a camera can bring a delicate operation 
before the eyes of the class without interfering with the surgeon — and 
courses in education through which groups of student teachers can 
observe, via television, instructors working in actual classroom situ- 
ations without causing any interruption to the class. 

In such courses as these and others instructors may make varied use 
of ETV even though it may be impractical to implement it as the total 
means of instruction. 

In lower division courses, there are many large classes in which 
television can be used to disseminate the course (as taught by one in- 
structor) to several lecture halls filled with students. The efficacy of this 
type of operation in presentation courses has been proven in many 
schools in recent years. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that better 
instruction results when the teacher is given the opportunity to use 
his special talents more widely than he can in the conventional 

The T'liiversity should cooperate with junior colleges and State 
colleges which may be equipped with TV facilities. It has resources 
which are not duplicated in auy of tliese institutions. schools can 
make use of these resources and give greater depth to their students' 
educational program by using kinescopes or video tape recordings of 
courses (or segments of courses) put together by tho University of 


Recommendation: The State College Board of Trustees .should de- 
velop an overall plan for educational television in California's State 
Colleges. Today no .such plan exi.sts. 


Reason: Because television is an expensive operation, it should be 
so org'anized that colleges are not duplicating- the work of one another 
when they could be doing individual work and pooling their uniciiie 
resources. Thus an overall plan is needed to insure that educational 
television in the State colleges will have an orderly development and 
that each school will not receive TV equipment simply because money 
is available or a building has been constructed to house the equipment. 

The State College system will, in the future, assume a major responsi- 
bility for undergraduate education in this State and television should 
become an extremely valuable teaching tool in these institutions. In 
order to insure that full value is received from ETV, a program 
should be set up delineating divisions of labor between the several 
colleges and specifying priorities for development throughout the 
State. ETV activity in each school should be organized so that it will 
fit into this State-wide plan. By so doing, greater economy would be 
eifected and, at the same time, the individual resources of each insti- 
tution would be more fully exploited. 

Recommendation: A policy statement should be laid down by the 
State College Board of Trustees specifying how^ ETV will be used in 
each college under this overall plan. Each school should not embark 
on an occupational program of television training simply because the 
equipment is available. 

Reason: Research has shown that the television industry can absorb 
only a few people who graduate as telecommunications majors each 
year. In addition, those schools which stress occupational programs 
(such as San Diego State College) place too little emphasis on in- 
structional TV. Thus the television equipment is not being used as 
efficiently as it could be and maximum economy is not being realized. 
The primary mission of television in the State Colleges should be in- 
struction — all occupational programs should be incidental to this. A 
few colleges may want to continue developing small programs for 
majors in educational television. With the growth in this area, schools 
and colleges may, in the future, be able to absorb some of the graduates 
trained in television for whom commercial stations do not have open- 


Recommendation: The Coordinating Council for Higher Education 
and each State institution of higher learning should establish a policy 
regarding the rights of instructors who may be affected by the intro- 
duction of television as a teaching tool at their schools. 

Reason: There are many problems concerning teachers rights in- 
volved with the development of educational television. This area, in 
the past, has been one of the big stumbling blocks in the w^ay of the 
development of efficient and economical ETV programs in some schools. 
In order that those professors who teach via television (and there- 
fore put a great deal more time into the background work involved in 
the development of an individual course) are compensated properly, 
such a policy should be established. It should delineate the advantages 


which will accrue — such as a reduction in course load, a payment for 
the re-use of tapes and films, technical assistance in i)repariii«i: each 
course for broadcast and other added benefits. 


Recommendation: Statewide cooperation on ETV between all the in- 
stitutions of higher learning should be stressed through the Coordi- 
nating Council for Higher Education. Outstanding programs which 
may be developed at one institution should be shared with as many 
other schools as may find them valuable. The Coordinating Council 
should study the feasibility of organizing a State Television Library 
Avhere the best in educational kinescopes and video-tape-recordings 
could be catalogued, filed and made available to schools which could 
make practical use of these resources in supplementing their programs. 

Reason: Such cooperation will make for a more efficient use of ETV 
throughout the State and will more fully exploit the individual re- 
sources of each institution. In addition, students from one school will 
be able to enjoy the talents of the out.standing professors from the 
several colleges and the University. 

A State Television Library would act as a central repository and 
focal point from which a school could obtain various specialized ma- 
terial which might not be immediately available on its own campus. 
This supplemental material could broaden the programs which exist 
at the various institutions throughout the State. It would also reduce 
the total cost of California's overall ETV program by making indi- 
vidual kinescopes or video-tape-recordings available 1o many institu- 

Recommendation: The Legislature in the future may wish to revise 
section !>5r)l and section 20255 of the Education Code to enable State 
colleges and/or junior colleges to make use of those open-circuit tele- 
vision channels that have been set aside by the Federal Connnunicatious 
Connnission for educational use and which eventually may be needed 
in public education to broadcast extension courses. Such a broadcast- 
ing operation should only be undertaken as a part of an overall plan 
for educational television in California and with the approval of the 
State Legislature. 

Reason: because of the projected increase in enrollnicnts at State 
colleges and junior colleges, it is possible in the future that there will 
not be sufficient classroom space to handle the student population. In 
such a case it will become necessary to educate students in locations 
other than college classrooms. Open-circuit broadcasting via educa- 
tional television channels might help to solve this problem. 

In addition, it could make the wisdom of the colleges available to 
tile general public. Educational television holds out nearly unlimited 
possibilities for the dissemination of fresh ideas and the best of what 
has been thought in the past. 

Because setting up an open-circuit operation is extremely expensive 
(average between $;^7(),0()0 and $550,000 according to latest figures) 
no school should consider undertaking such a project without thorough 
study and oidy after other important priorities have been met. 


Recommendation: The Coordinating Council for Higher Education 
should set up a standing committee which would undertake a con- 
tinuing study of the advances being made in educational television 
throughout the country. This connnittee should make regular recom- 
mendations to the Coordinatiug Council on how these advances can be 
adopted in California's institutions of higher learning. In addition, 
the committee should determine how these technological advances may 
effect economies in our state educational system. 

Reason: To date there has been little coordination of the various 
operations in educational television which have developed in public 
higher education in California. Such a committee under the jurisdic- 
tion of the Coordinating Council could alleviate this problem by acting 
as a central information center and also as an advisory agency to State 
institutions. It should assume the responsibility for insuring that effi- 
cient use is made of the new developments which may arise in the field 
of educational television in the future. One of the great contributions 
which BTV can make in California is to effect economies in public edu- 
cation. One educational administrator, Superintendent Joseph Hall of 
Dade County, Florida, noted before a Congressional Committee that 
his county had saved three million dollars in school construction in the 
three years it had been using television instruction. Furthermore, he 
anticipates saving twelve million dollars in the next five years. During 
the year 1960, the county has saved $300,000 in teachers' salaries which 
has paid the cost of televised instruction and Dr. Hall added, "the 
quality of the school program has improved. ' ' 


HELD-OCTOBER 13, 1960 
San Jose State Coilege— San Jose, Calif. 

Chairman Charles J. Conrad convened the meeting with opening 
remarks uhieh set down the hearinj^'s i)urpose and delineated the spe- 
cific areas in which the Ways and Means Committee is interested. 

"We are here to study the problems involved in educational televi- 
sion and particularly the costs which must be met by the State in 
financincr ETV operations in our public institutions of hifiher learn- 
in«r. " he pointed out. 

Early in the hearing', Dr. Robert 0. Ilall of Alameda State Collejre 
presented an overview of the status of educational television through- 
out the United States. 

Pointino- to the "tremendous growth" since ETV's inception shortly 
after the Korean War, he told the subcommittee that today there are 
47 open-circuit stations in operation in this country which are devoted 
strictly to education. 

In U.S. schools and colleges, several huiulrcd closed-circuit opera- 
tions are to be found. "They vary from the simple use of television as 
an opaque projector to a complete, closed-circuit instructional pro- 
gram." Dr. Hall pointed out that the difference between closed and 
open-circuit operations lies in the fact that closed-circuit pictures are 
transmitted by cable and may be seen only by people viewing a set 
connected to one of the cables. Open-circuit images are broadcast by 
transmitters, may be seen by the public and the stations broadcasting 
the images must be licensed by the Federal Comnninications Connnis- 

"In education, the big bulk of open-circuit ET\' has been found in 
primary and secondary schools," he went on. "Most instructional tele- 
vision in higher education has been closed-circuit. You have greater 
specialization in higher education and thus work with the smaller 
groui)s where closed-circuit operations are more efficient." 

Dr. Dorothy Knoell of the State Department of Education, reviewing 
for the sulx'onnnittee the background of ETV in California higher odu- 
cation, ]iointed out that its history goes back to the early lOoO's when 
the State colleges were working with "no State support at all — Avorking 
in individual communities with the commercial stations." 

The State first appropriated a major amount for educational televi- 
sion in If)")?. Two closed-circuit iirojects in the State colleges — one at 
San Jose and the other at San Diego — were given funds to begin op- 
erating. In lOfjS and 1959, further ajipropriations for ETV were cut 
from the (lovernor's budget. In 1960, however, fuiuls were once again 
made available to continue the jirogress of ETV in the State colleges. 

Dr. Knoell pointed out that with this appropriation the colleges are 
once again moving ahead. "If we are successful, we should have seven 
State colleges ecpiipped with closed-circuit e(|uipment within a year." 

( 14 ) 



Dr. Richard Lewis, head of the audio-visual department at San Jose 
State Collef>e believes it has. 

"We know that we have people who can teach directly in television. 
We know that students can learn from television. We are very confi- 
dent of these things. ' ' 

Dr. Lewis pointed up the success of San Jose's program in student 
teaching. Cameramen transmit an image from an actual classroom situ- 
ation to an audience of college students majoring in education. 

"lUvStead of having students running all over the country looking in 
the schools, all of them coming back with different experiences, we now 
can have as many as Me want in one room and, guided by one in- 
structor, they get an insight into the classroom which they could get in 
no other way. ' ' 

Dr. Lewis also cited the i^racticality of using TV to transmit, via 
coaxial cable, a demonstration performed in a limited space to a large 
group of students in another room. ETV has been used in this manner 
in aeronautics and engineering courses at San Jose. 

Rudy Bretz, of the University of California at Los Angeles, pointed 
to the use of ETV in medicine where a number of students can watch 
an operation being performed without interfering with the work of the 

Dr. Hall cited nation-wide figures which show that more than 700 
courses were given for credit last year over both closed and open- 
circuit stations in this country. 


Dr. Kenneth Norberg of Sacramento State College, a school which 
expects to have its closed-circuit TV complex out of the planning stage 
and into operation next year, told the subcommittee that at his institu- 
tion ' ' we 're interested in applying television to large courses primarily, 
but not necessarily exclusively, because we think some special things 
can be done in small course situations at times that would be very much 
w^orth the use of the equipment." 

Norberg pointed out that in each case television must be adapted 
to the character of the course. "In other words, if you have a course 
that meets three times a week, a three-unit course, it may be that in 
some cases it's better to use television twice a week and then go back 
to your small group discussion on the third meeting each week. Or it 
may be in other cases that the proper proportion would be one-third 
TV and two-thirds by other methods. I'm sure there are several courses 
which can be handled entirely by television, but in each case I think 
it's false economy to arbitarily apply television across the board to any 
given course of instruction until you know the proper balance between 
the several methods of instruction." 

At Chico State College, which has been giving extension courses over 
the local commercial station for several years, ETV Director Hector 
Lee said that closed-circuit television also could be a great help in 
making up for the lack of qualified teachers in such fields as mathe- 
matics and psychology. 


"Math, ])articnlarly tlie more elementary, jreneral types, could be 
handled by closed-cirenit ; so could psycholoiry and Ave think that s(mie 
kinds of freshman Enp-lish could be. I'm thinkinp: particularly of the 
usual sub-freshman course that's preparatory to the rejyular freshman 
course. ' ' 

At UCLA, ETV is emphasized as a teaching aide rather than a com- 
plete instructional tool. "We want to provide leadership in the devel- 
opment of simplified techniques so that we can introduce television 
into the classroom for the improvement of teachint; as it already 
exists." Director l>retz declared. "So far we've found that TV is a 
visual aide that is really convenient and usable for the instructors — 
it will do almost anything the instructor wishes it to do." 

Los Angeles ^tate College, on the other hand, has been involved in 
an extension operation similar to that of Chico in the north. L.A. 
currently broadcasts two courses (Children's Literature and Art, 
Music and Dance) over Station KCOP, a local commercial channel. 

Dr. James Enochs told the subcommittee that "we do anticipate 
that we Avill be able to <ro on with our open-circuit program in Los 
Angeles. But T would like to point out that the time available on 
commercial stations is getting less and less and the time we are able 
to rent at a reasonable rate is perhaps not the best hour for reaching 
the largest nu'^^bors of students. Therefore, a closed-circuit operation 
is also essential to reach larger numbers of our own students on 
ea"'^pus. " 

Dr. Leo Cain of San Francisco State College declared that his insti- 
tution would prefer to build their OAvn ETV courses at their college 
for transmission over the school's closed-circuit system. "Nevertheless, 
we feel our procrrams could then be made aA'ailable for open-circuit 
teleca^tinir throiH.di a device such as video tape." 

D'\ Cain stated that San Francisco State "has specific plans for 
developinsr certain courses by television and also plans to telecast 
certain aspects of other courses. "We feel that this sliould be done essen- 
tiallv by closed-circuit on the campus." 

He pointed up the necessitv of introducing closed-circuit operations 
onto a campus graduallv. "We are going to use the total facilities of 
the campus, including the instructional faculty, the radio-tv depart- 
ment, audio-visual and so forth, and avc believe that by introducing 
the Tnedium gradually costs will be kept to a minimum." 

San Francisco did its first Avork in i}istr)(riio)io] television in 10.")(i 
and continued for three years under a Ford Foundation grant. 

"We fouiul that the instruction of college students can be carried on 
successfully by telcA'ision and that the medium lends itself to instruc- 
tion in such fields as English, social science, science, psychology and 
creative arts. Tt also shoAved that superior high chool students could 
profit from college courses given by TV." 


Assen'blA-iiian .lohn Collier sugfcstfMl that the Slate might save 
moncA- by ecpiipping only "one central station at a specific state col- 
lege" for the dcA-elopment of programs. Tvinescopes or A'ideo tape 
recordings of these programs, he said, might then be shipped to State 


colleges throughout California and the "master teachers" would then 
be made available to students from Areata to San Diego at a savings 
to the taxpayers. 

He suggested that the "master teachers" could be brought to the 
central station from their various schools, film their courses and then 
return to their regular classes. 

Some of the educators objected that filming courses tended to 
"freeze" them and make it impossible for the professor to keep up to 
date with world events and the constant changes in his own area of 

Dr. Enochs mentioned the possibility that a college might gain con- 
trol of one of the as yet unused educational television channels set 
aside by the FCC. "If we had an ETV station similar to KQBD in 
San Francisco or KVIE in Sacramento we, and all the other colleges 
and public schools in the area, could share in the use of this station," 
he said. "This would be of value to the public because we cannot 
anticipate that there will continue to be time on commercial stations 
for educational programs. ' ' 

Dr. Knoell recommended that a "liaison committee under the Co- 
ordinatifig Coimcil for Higher Education he set up to have jurisdictiori 
(or at least some advisory powers) over educatio7ial televisio7i for 
higher education throughout the state. This committee would establish 
priorities for the equipping of ETV operations in the various state 
schools and decide w'here programs should be duplicated and where 
they should not be. 

"We have an educational planning office now in the Department of 
Education" she said, "with a specialist and two consultants. There 
we have had the responsibility for working with the State colleges in 
the development of occupational television majors. We also have 
worked with the colleges in the development of instructional television 
programs. We assume this function will go on under the new State 
College Board of Trustees." 


The biggest problem arising out of any extensive use of ETV in 
California higher education will be that of teachers rights, Dr. Knoell 
predicted. Some of the questions she posed in this area w^ere, "What 
is a proper course load for TV teachers? What kind of assistance 
should we give to TV instructors'? What do we do about payment for 
re-use of TV tapes and films? What about one instructor whose course 
goes to ten institutions?" 

Dr. Robert Hall pointed out that teachers working on ETV proj- 
ects "work longer, work harder." The total preparation is more dif- 

Often too, as Consultant to the committee Larry Margolis pointed 
out, teachers object to the loss of the personal relationship between 
themselves and their students. 

Dr. Dallas Tueller of Fresno State College, in speaking of the dif- 
ficulties which his staff has encountered in attempting to set up an 
ETV program at Fresno, reported that once a professor has done one 
course for television he is reluctant to repeat the experience. 


"I think we have proven the point that there is a readiness of our 
able people to use this medium and to use it effectively. But all have 
said that until there is provision for some reduction in teaching load 
and provision for the kind of assistance that you would get from a 
good audio-visual center where there is a graphic arts person avail- 
able, they would not undertake it again." 

Assemblyman Bert DeLotto asked if television might not tend to 
create a caste system in education where one group of teachers who 
give courses via television are better known and more highly paid — 
while the other group is relegated to a second-class status of leading 
discussion groups and instructing smaller classes. 

Witnesses agreed that this could well be a problem and, as Dr. Cain 
of San Francisco State College put it, it will probably demand a policy 
decision on the part of the State college system when ETV is firmly 
established and might even demand "legislative action." 


Witnesses agreed that in the future instructional television w^ould 
foster economy and lower the cost-per-student in California higher 
education — but for the present, ETV is still an expensive operation. 

In the words of Dean Charles Trigg of Los Angeles Cit}^ College, 
"Closed-circuit TV instruction has been more expensive than the con- 
ventional procedures using other audio-visual aids. We feel, however, 
that there sliould be some way to utilize television to effect economies or 
to improve instruction or both. ' ' 

Dr. Hector Lee of Chieo pointed out that "if we have 100 students 
in a class that ordinarily has 20 students to a section, we could spi-ead 
the iiLstructor to four equivalent sections via television and thus effect 
a savings." 

President Cornelius Siemens told the subcommittee that "we at 
Humboldt State College have proceeded on the assumption that tele- 
vison equipment, if selected with care, can serve the functions of 
occupatiojial training, teacher observation and other audio-visual and 
instructional uses. Television equipment, however, cannot be a sub- 
stitute for the classroom teacher though it can add and enrich class- 
room instruction. And instruction by television, considering the highly 
technical personnel necessary to maintain and operate the equipment 
may, except in very large classes, prove as expensive as instruction by 
the classroom teacher." 

At Sacramento State College, where an instructional television pro- 
gram has just come off the drawing boards. Dr. Kenneth Norberg 
reported that the cost of the operation will be between $29,000 and 
$37,000 a year over the next five or six years. "Thus our total expendi- 
ture for teU'vised instruction in any given year is less than 1 percent 
of the total budget. We think if we can accomplish the results we 
have in mind, that this is a very modest expenditure for the values 
it will gain." 

Los Angeles State College this year received an apin-oin-iation of 
$90,000 for ETV. Dr. James Enochs reported that $21,000 was for the 
rental of open-circuit time on local Station KCOP ; $40,000 was for 
the closed-circuit equipment, two camera chains and a film camera 


chain along with the accessory and auxiliary equipment which is in- 
volved; $11,000 was appropriated for the remodeling of the studio 
facilities and $16,000 was for personnel. 

Witnesses stressed that in order to effect economy it is always im- 
portant to have advance planning. Dr. Cain pointed out "that while 
adequate equipment is necessary, adequate technical arrangements do 
not necessarily mean that the effective use of television as an instruc- 
tional device will be guaranteed. Success is determined by careful 
planning by both administration and faculty of the college in order 
that it may gain acceptance by both faculty and students as a respon- 
sible educational procedure. It must be integrated into the instruc- 
tional program in a manner that will extend and improve the quality 
of teaching. ' ' 

At !San Diego State College, where the total investment in equip- 
ment is valued at $200,000, the cost of operating the television center 
each year is $8,500. 

San Diego's Dr. Kenneth Jones, in speaking of ETV's costs, stated 
his belief that "when instructional television is developed to its full 
potential in both open and closed-circuit dissemination, it may well 
reduce the estimated increase in the cost of education projected over 
the next ten years. Comparable to commercial broadcasting, it depends 
upon the student load taught via the medium just as advertising and 
production costs are met in commercial television by the buyer poten- 
tial of any given product that is reached through television. It seems 
to me reasonable to believe that instructional television will compare 
quite favorably with the costs of operating and maintaining a major 
technical or scientific department within the school. The difference 
here is the difference of means to education rather than the ends of 

"Instructional television moneys will provide a dissemination of 
education rather than provide the knowledge per se." 


As Committee Consultant Larry Margolis put it: "There is general 
agreement concerning the need for someone in the State Finance or 
Purchasing Department who is an expert on television equipment." 

Dr. Knoell pointed out that there had been $35,000 in the Gover- 
nor's budget for such a person and his staff, but this was cut out of 
the budget by the Legislature. 

There has been no central purchasing in the past. 

According to Harold Strohmer of Chico State College, the equipment 
which has been agreed upon for State colleges is ' ' compatible with com- 
mercial stations and could be used directly over open-circuit for 

"There is cheaper equipment which is not compatible, but this has 
never been considered," he said, in reply to a question from Mr. Mar- 
golis asking if there was not a kind of equipment which will do only 
closed-circuit classroom instruction and nothing else. 

Like Dr. Knoell, Los Angeles State College's Dr. Enochs approved 
of central purchasing and told the subcommittee that "we would have 
benefited if we had had really expert help in the past." 

20 ixnatiM committee on ways and means 


According to Dr. D»>rothy Kno^U, the State Department of Educa- 
tion "will not introduce an occupational pro(rram of television educa- 
tion unless it is in support of a stron<r ETV instructional program." 
She pointed out, however, that the Director of Finance had restricted 
budgeting last year to occupational programs only. This policy has 
been changed now and the emphasis Is being placed on instructional 
television, she said. 

In the two State colleges which have closed-circuit setups operating 
today, however, occupational programs are active. San Jose State Col- 
lege more closely follows the formula which Dr. Knoell said the De- 
partment of Education favors. 

There the equipment is u.sed for instructional purposes. An occupa- 
tional program in television and radio exists under the aegis of the 
Speech and Drama Department. 

At San Diego State (Jollege the program in television is completely 
given over to occupational training and no budget exists for instruc- 

At Humboldt State College, which is soon to have closed-circuit 
equipment, money was provided for an occupational program after a 
language arts building was con.structed to the equipment. 

At Chico State College no ocr;upational program exists and in the 
words of Dr. Hector Lee, "we don't foresee one." 

Dr. Enochs reported that an occupational program will be instituted 
at Lf>s Angeles State College when closed circuit equipment is installed. 
"We feel we should tr\' to put our emphasis upon the preparation of 
persons to work in educational television, however." 

San Franci.s<;o State College hopes to integrate the two sides of its 
program. "We intend to merge with the in.structional program the 
technical help and advice which can be given to us by our professional 
training courses in television. This will reduce costs." San Francisco 
State College has had a professional major in radio-television for eight 

Dr. Knoell .stressed that the occupational programs do not train 
tef;hnicians. "It is a professional program to train people for the 
indu.strj-. ' ' 

Legislative Intern Larry Fisher questioned whether there was a suffi- 
cient demand in the industry to absorb a large number of graduates 
trained for the television profession. 

Dr. James Enochs replied that this was one reason the State has not 
proceeded as rapidly with the development of a professional program 
in radio-television. He nevertheless expressed the hope that educa- 
tional television operations in the future may be able to absorb a large 
numb*^r of professionally trained graduates. 


Witnesses were in agreement that television has a place in higher 
education, even though some schools have had difficulty implementing 
their ETV programs. Dean Trigg of Los Angeles City College said 
that faculty opposition had forced a curtailment of his school's TV 


operation. Dr. Cain of San Francisco and Dr. Lombard of Fresno both 
told the subcommittee that they have had difficulty securing staff to 
teach over television because there was no provision for added benefits 
such as a lessening of course load. Nevertheless, each educator expressed 
optimism about the future of TV at his school. 

Dr. Lewis of San Jose State College, in summing up said; "Televi- 
sion will play an important role if we are wise and don't try to make 
it do everything. If we try to make it do those things it can do well and 
then do it with a sufficient number of students so that the cost is down 
to a point where we're actually hoping to solve some of our problems, 
it will be of great value to education. ' ' 

priuitd im calipo&nia state pkikting office 
L-2606 1-61 500 



According to Ur. Dorothy Knocll, tlie State Department of Educa- 
tion "will not introduce an occupational pro<>rani of television educa- 
tion unless it is in supi)ort of a strony ETV instructional program." 
IShe pointed out, however, that the Director of Finance had restricted 
budgeting last year to occupational programs only. This policy has 
been changed now and the emphasis is being placed on instructional 
television, she said. 

In the two State colleges which have closed-circuit setups operating 
today, however, occui)ational programs are active. San Jose State Col- 
lege more closely follows the formuhi wliicli Dr. Ivnoell said the De- 
partment of Education favors. 

There the equipment is used for instructional purposes. An occupa- 
tional program in television and radio exists under the aegis of the 
Speech and Drama Department. 

At San Diego State College the program in television is completely 
given over to occupational training and no budget exists for instruc- 
tional uses. 

At Humboldt State College, which is soon to have closed-circuit 
equipment, money was provided for an occupational program after a 
language arts building was constructed to house the equipment. 

At Chico Stale College no occupational program exists and in the 
words of Dr. Hector Lee, "we don't foresee one." 

Dr. Enochs reported that an occupational program will be instituted 
at Los Angeles State College when closed circuit e(iuii)ment is installed. 
"We feel we should try to put our em])hasis upon the preparation of 
persons to work in educational television, however." 

San Francisco State College hopes to integrate the two sides of its 
program. "We intend to merge with the instructional program the 
technical help and advice which can be given to us by our professional 
training courses in television. This will reduce costs." San Francisco 
State College has had a professional major in radio-television for eight 

Dr. Knoell stressed that the occu])ational programs do not train 
technicians. "It is a professional program to train people for the 

Legislative Intern Larry Fisher qucstioneil whether there was a suffi- 
cient demand in the industry to absorb a large number of graduates 
trained for the television profession. 

Dr. .lames Enochs rei)]ied that this was one reason the State has not 
proceeded as rapidly witli the development of a professional jirogram 
in radio-teh»vision. He nevertheless expressed the hope that educa- 
tional television operations in the future may be able to absorb a large 
number of professionally trained graduates. 


Witnesses were in agreement that television has a place in higher 
education, even though some schools have had difficulty implementing 
their ETV j)rograms. Dean Trigg of Los Angeles City College said 
that faculty oj)position had forced a curtailment of his school's TV 


operation. Dr. Cain of San Francisco and Dr. Lombard of Fresno both 
told the subcommittee that they have had difficulty securing staff to 
teach over television because there was no provision for added benefits 
such as a lessening of course load. Nevertheless, each educator expressed 
optimism about the future of TV at his school. 

Dr. Lewis of San Jose State College, in summing up said; "Televi- 
sion will play an important role if we are wise and don't try to make 
it do everything. If we try to make it do those things it can do well and 
then do it with a sufficient number of students so that the cost is down 
to a point where we're actually hoping to solve some of our problems, 
it will be of great value to education. ' ' 

printed in California state printing office 
L-2606 1-61 500 





Jesse M. Unruh, Chairman 

Bruce F. Allen Glenn E. Coolidge, Vice Chairman 

Jack A. Beaver Pauline L. Davis 

Carlos Bee Bert DeLotto 

Frank P. Belotti Edward M. Gaffney 

John L. E. Collier Leverette D. House 

Charles J. Conrad Frank Lanterman 

Lloyd W. Lowrey 


Thomas J. MacBride 

Lester A. McMillan 

William A. Munnell 

Carley V. Porter 

Thomas M. Rees 

Bruce Sumner 

Gordon H. Winton, Jr. 


DANIEL M. LUEVANO, Consultant RICHARD DAY, Legislative Intern 

(Sept. 1959-Sept. 1960) (Sept. 1959-Sept. 1960) 

LARRY MARGOLIS, Consultant LAWRENCE W. FISHER, Legislative Intern 

(Sept. 1960- ) (Sept. 1960- ) 

MARION CERRELL, Committee Secretary 

February 15, 1961 


Published by the 



Majority Floor Leader 

Chief Clerk of t/ie Assembly 

Speafeer pro Tempore 

Minorify Floor Leader 


Assembly Interim Committee on Ways and Means 

California Legislature 

February 15, 1961 
To the Speaker and Members of the Assetnlly 

Your Interim Committee on Ways and Means in accordance with the 
provisions of House Resolution 326.24 herewith respectfully submits a 
report on Dedicated Funds. 

Because of general concern over the restrictions on the Governor and 
the Legislature in planning and approving a realistic expenditure 
budget, your Committee assigned this subject for special study by the 
consulting firm of Griffenhagen-Kroeger, Inc., specialists in public 
administration and finance. Mr. Louis J. Kroeger and Mr. Hugh J. 
Reber represented the firm in this study. 

Your Committee held conference sessions with the consultants on 
early drafts of the report and a public hearing in which both general 
principles and certain special funds were discussed. The Committee 
expresses its appreciation to the witnesses whose testimony contributed 
to a better understanding of this complex problem. 

Respectfully submitted. 

JESSE M. UNRUH, Chairman 



(with reservations) 



(with reservations) 



LESTER A. McMillan 





Introduction 7 

Summary Findings and Conclusions 8 

The Present Situation 9 

The Legal Status 11 

Previous Comment 12 

Practices of Other States 17 

Other Levels of Government 17 

Budget Format 18 

Guiding Principles 19 

Criteria Applied 32 

A Plan of Action 38 

Appendix A : Special Fund Income, Expense and Balances 39 

Appendix B : Summary of Special Fund Characteristics 45 

Appendix C : Case Studies 52 


2— L-2732 


This is a report about the "dedicated" funds of the State of Cali- 

Dedicated funds are all those moneys in whole or in part exempt 
from legislative control over their expenditure. 

Some dedicated funds are priorities on the general fund. Others are 
know as ' ' special funds. ' ' 

Dedications or priorities established by the constitution or by statute 
on the general fund, remove about 55% of that fund from effective 
legislative control in the current fiscal year. 

Some of the "special funds" are subject to legislative control over 
their rate of income and expenditure ; but in most cases special fund 
balances are preserved against transfer to any other purpose, however 
critical the fiscal position of the State may be. 

The Governor and the legislature are made responsible by the con- 
stitution for a balanced budget. That responsibility is complete and 
inescapable; but unqualified authority to discharge that responsibility 
is limited to about 34% of the total of the State's expense. As to the 
remaining 66%, the Governor and the legislature are restricted by the 
constitution and statutes in their ability to plan and approve a budget 
exactly suited to both current needs and the State's current fiscal 

This lack of fiscal control has been viewed critically for decades by 
every responsible observer and student of California state government, 
including many legislative committees. Often this critical comment 
has been incidental to a report on some other subject. 

This report has only one subject — the policy and fiscal handicaps 
of dedicated funds. It has only one purpose — the elimination of the 
handicaps, to restore fiscal authority equal to fiscal responsibility. 



Dedicatious ot" poriious of ilie Geueral Fuud to speeitie purposes and 
the multiplicity of Special Funds are a substantial restriction on the 
authority of the Governor and the Legislature to fulfill their resjK)nsi- 
bility for a properly balanced bud«ret. 

Moreover, the large number of Special Funds complicate accounting, 
make case management and investment more difficult, and create pools 
of idle funds. 

For more than two decades the evils of dedicated funds have been 
reported by students and observers, including many committees of this 

Very few of the states have solved this problem ; but this shoidd not 
deter California. 

At both the federal and local levels, there is much less reliance on 
dedications of funds. 

Although Special Funds are generally undesirable, there are two 
categories which are justitied: (1) invested capital funds and (2) 
funds for segregated operations and entities. 

The report identifies a number of kinds of dedications and suggests 
criteria for judging their validity. By these criteria, most of the dedi- 
cations are found to be unjustified. 

Legislation is proposed to consolidate or abolish many of these dedi- 
cations in the inter^ of better planning and fiscal control. 



The extent of the special funds problem is indicated by the fact that 
there are currently 70 such funds aceounted for in the budget, Avhich 
during the IPGO-Gl fiscal year are expected to receive $728,220,176 in 
income, spend $780,922,048 and have remaining balances on June 80, 
1961 of $167,911,013. Another 63 such funds, not included in the 
budget totals, had balances on June 30, 1959 totalling $2,068,935,224. 
The detail of the current income, expense and balances for these funds, 
as taken from the current budget, appear as Appendix A in this report. 

Aiipendix B summarizes the legal authority, date of establishment, 
depository and priuci]ial source, and disposition of each fund. 

The dedications of the general fund established by the constitution 
or by statute are as listed below, together with the estimated expendi- 
ture for these purposes in the current fiscal year : 


Salario.s of State Le!:i.';lator8 

Section 2 (b). Article IV $720,000 

Bond Interest and Redemption 

Various Bond Acts Ratified in the Constitution 14,449,088 

Public School Buildings Bonds Ratified in the Constitution 17,513,006 

Total Constitutional Fixed Charge:- $32,682,094 

Contribution to Judges' Retirement Fund, 
Section 75101, Government Code : 

Justices and Judges of Supreme and Appellant Courts — State 

Operations $17,20<j 

Judges of Superior and Municipal Courts — State Operations 242,775 

Apportionment to Public Schools 

Sections 51.13. 6401, 6919, 17301, 17456, 18251, 18303 and 20211 

Education Code — — 674,914,000 * 

Contributions to State Employees' Retirement System — Sections 

20751 aud 20752, Government Code: State Operations 29,212,087 

Local As.sistance 12,300 

Old Age Security 

Section 2021. Welfare and Institutions Code 119,804,100 

Section 4552. Welfare and Institutions Code 9,205,5()0 

Aid to Needy Blind 

Section 3025. Welfare and Institutions Code 8,315,{X)0 

Section 4552. Welfare and Institutions Code 522,000 

Aid to Potentially Self-Supporting Blind 

Section 3420. Welfare and Institutions Code 335,200 

Section 4552. Welfare and Institutions Code 21,600 

Aid to Xeetly Children 

Section 1.510. Welfare and Institutions Code 55,388,800 

Section 4552. Welfare and Institutions Code 6,370,380 

Aid to Needy Disabled 

Section 4()02, Welfare and Institutions Code 6,844,.300 

Aid to Needy Disabled 

Section 4552, Welfare and Institutions Code 401,600 

Totals, Statutory Fixed Charges $911,609,902 

Totals, Fixed Charges $944,291,996 

• Although the present apportionment is eet by statute, there is a constitutional pro- 
vision of 1180 per ADA below which the Legislature may not reduce it. 

(9 ) 


In short, dedicated funds are involved in about two-thirds of the 
annual fiscal program of the State of California. 

Stated in another way, the dedicated funds impair by two-thirds the 
authority of the Governor and the Legislature to plan and control the 
State's fiscal well-being. 

"WTiile the concept of dedicated funds is often said to pre-date the 
concept of the executive budget, it is interesting to note that of the 
present special funds the great majority have been created since the 
state constitution was amended in 1922 to provide an executive budget. 
Of these funds now in existence: 

4 were created prior to 1900 

6 were created in the decade 1900-09 

18 were created in the decade 1910-19 

28 were created in the decade 1920-29 

29 were created in the decade 1930-39 

33 were created in the decade 1940-49 

37 were created in the decade 1950-59 


Those special funds or dedications of portions of the general fund 
which are provided by the constitution or by initiative measures not 
subject to legislative amendment must necessarily remain as they are 
until and unless the people approve the necessary change. 

All statutory funds and dedications can, of course, be abolished by 
the Legislature legally, if not practically, as easily as they were created. 
In this sense, dedicated funds are not "beyond legislative control." Yet 
as long as the dedications remain on the books, they restrict to that 
degree the Legislature's freedom in acting on the budget. That, of 
course, is usually their purpose. 

In some cases the dedication may have been intended only as a state- 
ment of policy, yet they are in such form as to discourage the annual 
review and reconsideration of that policy; and in doing so serve to 
defeat a basic constitutional policy that there shall be an annual budget. 

The question has been raised whether the Legislature can abolish 
the special fund of a regulatory or licensing agency and transfer the 
revenue to the General Fund. Representatives of the State Controller 
have expressed the view that since these funds are obtained through 
the exercise of the State's police power, rather than its taxing power, 
the funds must retain a special character. 

The question was put to the Legislative Counsel, In his Opinion No. 
4559, dated August 22, 1960, it is held that "The Legislature may not 
abolish special funds of regulatory or licensing agencies, and transfer 
the revenue thereof to the General Fund, where the effect would be 
to impede the regulatory program to which the fund relates. Balances 
in such funds, however, may be transferred to the General Fund where 
such transfer will not impede the continued operation of the regulatory 
programs to which the funds relate. ' ' 

This Opinion does not meet the issue squarely. There is no necessary 
implication in the abolishment of special funds that the effect would 
be "to impede the regulatory program." If the Legislature were to 
abolish such funds, and at the same time impose crippling limitations 
on the appropriations for the regulatory agencies, that might be the 
case. It must be assumed, however, that the Legislature in the exercise 
of its powers will act wisely and provide necessary support for all 
authorized functions of the State government. Separate accounts could 
be kept so that it would be clear at all times what the relationship is 
between the amount of income derived from each field of activity 
under regulation or license, and the expenditures devoted to regulation 
and enforcement, without imposing the rigidity of separate identity 
for the money. 



This is by no means the first study to reeo^ize the critical problems 
posed by dedicated funds. The following quotations show recurrent 
attention to the matter. In brief, they highlight these problems arising 
from dedications of funds: 

1. Inconsistency in principle with an annual budget 

2. Inadequate control over operating plans and policies 

3. Inadequate control over expenditures 

4. Lack of clarity in accounts reflecting the State's net financial 

5. Difficulties in cash management 

6. Limitations in investments 

7. Added administrative costs 

As long ago as 1936, Griffenhagen and Associates (one of the firms 
merged to form Griffenhagen-Kroeger, Inc., the Committee's consultants 
on this study) made these comments in a report to the Interim Com- 
mittee of Twenty-five of the California Conference on Government and 
Taxation : 

"The Special Fund System: 

"Special funds represent a clumsy and archaic method of making 
allocations of public moneys to particular purposes. They serve no 
purpose that could not be accomplished far more conveniently, 
efficiently and economically through the budget system. Public 
moneys should be allocated on the ba.sis of demon.strated needs with 
due regard to the importance and urgency of each need in relation 
to all other needs. The special fund system takes no account of 
actual or relative needs for moneys, but arbitrarily applies reve- 
nues from particular sources to particular purposes. 

"Special funds unnecessarily tie up cash in idle bank accounts. 
Huge working capital reserves are inequitable under the system 
since each fund is operated so as always to have some cash sur- 
plus. . , . 

* ' The theory of benefit in taxation is in some measure responsible 
for this situation. Under this theory those who benefit from a gov- 
ernment service are taxed for its support and their contributions 
are u.sed to support the service. The benefit theory- is sound, but it 
is not necessary to special funds and to maintain idle cash 
balances to give effect to the principles involved in the case of any 
service. Budgeting and accounting can insure any allocation of 
funds decreed by the people or the legislature. . . . 



"Tradition and the apparent simplicity of a special fund are 
largely responsible for the continued existence of the special fund 
system. The special fund system ante-dated the budget. It is a 
primitive way of allocating moneys. It is analogous to the stocking 
or tin box method of budgeting under which the housewife places 
the money for each of the principal items of household expense in 
a separate stocking or box, except there are few housewives who 
would go hungry if the cash in the ' ' food ' ' stocking were exhausted 
and there were a surplus of money in all of the other stockings. 
TVhen any group of taxpayers wants a new service, particularly 
a regulatory service in their own interests, the plans for the service 
always include the means of financing it, and what looks more 
simple to the average taxpayer or member of the legislature than 
a provision in a bill to the effect that all revenues collected under its 
provisions shall constitute a special fund from which the expenses 
of administering the act shall be defrayed? The fallacy of this is 
that neither the cost of administration nor the amount or rate of 
the fee or tax is scientifically determined. In connection with al- 
most every special fund a substantial part of the overhead cost of 
administration is borne by the general fund supported by general 
taxation and in addition the people pay the fees or taxes in in- 
creased prices of the services and commodities they buy from the 
regulated industry, trade, or profession. 

"In establishing special funds, the resulting complexity of gov- 
ernmental finances, the added difficulties of accounting, the un- 
avoidable volume and intricacies of financial reports, and the in- 
evitable bewilderment of the average taxpayer about the finances 
of government, are not recognized. 

"Special funds are incompatible with the budget. The budget 
should be a definite financial plan for a definite future period. It 
should embrace all the resources available and to become or to be 
made available, and a complete allocation of such resources on the 
basis of demonstrated needs. Special funds are continuing appro- 
priations of specific revenues without regard to actual needs. They 
tie the hands of the executive and the legislature since they can be 
used only for specific purposes, and thus, one legislature succeeds 
in binding its successors." 

More recent!}' — in the last decade — these significant comments have 
been made by committees of this Legislature : 

Senate Interim Committee on Governmental Reorganization — ^Jan- 
uary, 1951. 

' ' Conclusion No. 2 — The practice of establishing a large number 
of special funds with moneys earmarked for specific purposes un- 
necessarily complicates the State 's accounting system and interferes 
with the Legislature 's responsibility for fixing over-all State policy. 

" Eecommendation No. 2 — The practice of establishing special 
funds should be studied further to see if a system more appropriate 
to legislative purposes could be evolved." 

3— L.-2732 


Senate Interim Committee on State and Local Taxation — "Economy or 
Deficits: The Outlook for Government Finance." March, 1952. 

"Typically, surpluses lead to extravagances in governmental 
operations. They lead to the assumption of new services and the 
earmarking of fixed amounts of funds for the continued provision 
of the services. State expenditures for public schools, highways, 
and categorical aid programs are cases in point. "With the advent 
of a decline in economic activity, the State thus finds itself hope- 
lessly saddled with obligations to pay out fixed sums to provide 
guaranteed amounts of service to its citizens in the face of revenues 
which are inadequate for meeting these obligations." 

Legislative Auditor — "Recommendations Regarding the Disposition of 
State Revenue from Horse Racing", November 20, 1952. 

"That the Fair and Exposition Fund be abolished and that reve- 
nue . . . which now goes into the Fair and Exposition Fund . . . 
be channeled into the State's General Fund. We further recom- 
mend (a) that this same action be taken with regard to breakage 
revenues that go into the State College Fund, and (b) that all 
activities now supported from horse racing revenues, to the extent 
that they are deemed necessary by the Legislature, be supported 
on the basis of annual budget justifications and annual appropri- 
ations from the General Fund. 

"Our reasons for this basic recommendation are as follows: 

1. The creation of special funds and the appropriation of fixed 
amounts or fixed percentages from these special funds is unsound 
budgetary and fiscal policy. It obscures the State's financial posi- 
tion, limits the Legislature's ability to consider the relative needs 
of fairs and related activities in terms of other programs or the 
over-all financial condition of the State, and tends to remove se- 
lected activities of government from general public scrutiny in 
terms of the general tax burden of the State." 

Joint Legislative Budget Committee — "Governmental Fund Structure of 
the State of California", 1953. 

"The fund structure of (California) State Government consti- 
tutes approximately 155 separate funds in the State Treasurj-, with 
approximately 15,000 separate accounts employed by the State Con- 
troller who is charged by law with the responsibility of superin- 
tending the fiscal concerns of the State and, among other duties, is 
charged with the keeping of all accounts in which the State is in- 
terested unless otherwise provided by law . . . The funds are 
grouped into nine generally accepted classes, namely, the General 
Fund Reserve, Special Kcvenue, Working Capital, Bond, Sinking 
Special Assessment, Trust and Agency, and Utility Funds." 

Assrmhhi Interim Commiltcc on Rciunuc and Taxation — "Taxation of 
Horse Racing in California." June, 1953. 

"... An amount equivalent to four percent of the total pari-mutuel 
handle in California goes into the Fair and Exposition Fund. In 
1953-54 this will produce over $15,700,000 which will be expended 


primarily for state and local fairs and related purposes. The com- 
mittee questions the need for continued expenditures of this 
magnitude for these purposes in a time when existing state reve- 
nues are hard pressed to provide what the committee believes to 
be more fundamental and more necessary services." 

Joint Legislative Committee on Impounded Funds from Tide and 
Submerged Lands — ^"Study of Impounded Funds from Tide and Sub- 
merged Lands." March, 1954. 

"In connection with a discussion of the State Beach and Park 
Fund, the Legislative Analyst, Mr. Post, stressed again his view 
that a far broader concept must be applied budget-wise than to 
tie beaches and park development to any particular fund. Only in 
exceptional cases such as highways, he insisted, could a really 
good argument be made for a special fund. It was his belief that 
no such case could be made for oil revenues being the basis for the 
program under discussion. Rather it should be valued on the same 
basis as, for example, the Division of Forestry, or many other 
projects financed out of the General Fund." 

Senate Interim Committee on Governmental Organization — "Proposed 
Reorganization of California State Agencies." June, 1955. 

' ' The analysis of fund accounting included in the second partial 
report of the Senate Interim Committee on Governmental Re- 
organization presented to the Legislature in January, 1951, was 
reviewed by Price Waterhouse and Company in the report Ac- 
counting and Auditing for the State of California, November 30, 
1954, prepared for the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. This 
report states that we agree with substantially all the remarks 
that were made which endorse the proposition that 'the need to 
keep separate records for a multitude of funds impedes the budget- 
ing and accounting and reduces legislative control.' Furthermore, 
it makes it difficult to present an informative, comprehensive state- 
ment of a state's operations and its financial condition." 

Assembly Interim Committee on Government Organization — "Recom- 
mendations for Obtaining Economy and Efficiency in California State 
Government." December, 1958. 

"The Legislature should submit to the voters a constitutional 
amendment which would remove from the Constitution all present 
restrictions against full annual review of the State's total budget 
by the Legislature. 

"The Committee concludes that within well-defined limitations 
there is some practical justification for a few continuing appropria- 
tions. Examples of such are [those] providing: (a) the State's 
share of state employees ' and teachers 'and other retirement funds; 
and (b) funds necessary for the payment of bond interest and 
principal amounts as due. 

' ' The Committee recommends that there be established by appro- 
priate legislation a temporary commission composed of members 
of the legislative and executive branches of State Government and 
a number of citizens otherwise substantially qualified . . . This 


Commission should be given . . . the mission of : . . . examining 
the continuing, permanent appropriations now in existence to see 
if there should not be a far greater opportunity for the Legislature 
than it has now to review the State's total annual proposed ex- 

Joint Legislative Tax Committee — May, 1959. 

"The Committee recommends that the Legislature should take 
all necessary steps to abolish all special funds with the exception 
of those providing for the State's share of state employees' and 
teachers' and other retirement funds, and those necessary for the 
payment of bond interest and principal amounts as due." 

Finally, The Governor's Committee on Reorganization in State Gov- 
ernment, in its "Report to the Governor on Reorganization of 
State Government by Task Forces", November 1959, says: 

"Efforts to minimize the number of special funds as a means of 
reducing relative accounting and other administrative costs should 
be given positive continuous emphasis. Also, at every opportunity, 
the Legislature should be apprised of the desirability of this." 


We learn from other states that dedicated funds are a problem to 
most. That few other states have met the problem head-on and solved 
it by bold action should not dissuade California from taking whatever 
steps it finds necessary. 

Many writers and special commissions, more or less nation-wide, 
have expressed concern regarding the special fund practices. The 
Council of State Governments finds these practices to be undermining 
the authority of state legislatures, and it has repeatedly recommended 
that special funds generally be abolished. It does not insist that all of 
them can be abolished. 

Situations that exist or may exist in any state explain why this is 
a nation-wide problem, including the following: 

1. The rise of special user taxation for highways. 

2. Expanding federal aid. 

3. Federally sponsored insurance funds in the welfare field. 

4. A desire generally to reduce taxation when possible by develop- 
ing special charges for public services. 

5. States establishing logically segregated kinds of activities such 
as pensions, liquor stores, institutional enterprises, etc., where 
separate, essentially commercial-type accounting is necessary. 

6. States increasingly assuming fixed responsibilities for aids to 
local governments, particularly schools. 

Some of these prevailing practices do not always involve special 
funds or dedications, but they clearly imply that special funds or 
dedications are needed for some purposes. In four states * there is a 
policy of almost entirely avoiding tax dedications, including highway 
user tax dedication. In many other states there are few tax dedications 
except for highways. 


The practice of dedicating funds, and hence the problems they create, 
are not peculiar to the states. However, the federal government, the 
counties, the cities and other local units to a much lesser degree com- 
plicate their budgeting, their accounting and auditing or their fiscal 
management by creating, in effect, special bank accounts. 

There are many examples in both national and local governments of 
amounts spent for a given function in rough proportion to a given 
source of revenue ; but this is a matter of general policy, taking into 
consideration facts obtained from the general accounts and budget. 

The special funds usually found at other levels of government are 
those which are justified for a state government as well, according to. 
criteria discussed later in this report. 

♦ New Jersey, Delaware, New York and Rhode Island. 



The California budget reflects the condition of all the funds under 
the control of the State. As submitted by the Governor, the budj^et 
document is partly a statement of financial condition, and partly a 
recommendation for expenditures to support the next year's prof^ram. 

That part of the budfjet proposal -which is finally included in the 
appropriation actions of the Leprislature is partly an automatic enact- 
ment according to prevailing established formulas, and partly (a lesser 
part) an expression of legislative judgment on the Governor's proposed 

The current budget document is divided into several parts, intended 
to assist in a better understanding of its principal characteristics. The 
main divisions are : 

1. Message 

2. Charts and Summaries 

3. State Operations 

4. Capital Outlay 

5. Local Assistance 

6. Treasury Funds not Included in Budget Totals 

Though this format has helped considerably to isolate the considerable 
amount of uncontrolled exi)en<liture for local assistance, and the treasury 
funds not included in tlie budget totals, it still does not provide either 
to the Legislature or the general public a full understanding of the 
limitations on legislative control over funds. 

We recommend that in some manner the format of the budget be 
further modified to show more clearly in summary and in addition to 
what it already shows : 

Controlled Current Operations 
Controlled Current Capital Expenditures 

Constitutional and Statutory Expenditures in whole or in part not 
currently luider legislative controls. 

( 18) 


The constitution pronounces a most important guiding principle, that 
the Governor shall submit an annual budget calculated to balance ex- 
penditures and revenues ; and it implies that the Legislature shall adopt 
a fiscal program consistent with this principle. To be effective, this 
requires that there be no financial resources outside the budget and no 
activities escaping legislative review and controls. 

Unless legislative control can be made more complete, there are three 
possible alternatives which ought to be considered. 

A. The first would be to make clear, perhaps by constitutional amend- 
ment, that the Legislature is not really required to be concerned 
with a review of current needs in relation to current revenue, but 
rather that it is limited to revising the formulas from time to time 
by which expenditures will automatically be made. This hardly 
seems a sensible alternative, even though it is implied in much of 
the present situation. Surely, it is more realistic to require each 
succeeding legislature to review the current situation, with which 
it is most familiar, rather than to require it to speculate about and 
to control future conditions about which it can make only an 
educated estimate. 

B. The second alternative would be to go the whole way on the dedi- 
cation of funds, leaving it to the people to make all of the basic 
decisions about priorities by constitutional amendments and initia- 
tive or referendum measures ; and then simply to require the 
Legislature to raise the funds necessary to support these pro- 
grams. This, too, is unrealistic and complex. The total financial 
requirements of the State are much too involved to be successfully 
presented to and understood by the electorate at large. Appeals to 
people about specific programs are likely to be more emotional 
than logical. The commitments once made by these procedures 
would be exceedingly difficult to undo — as the present conditions 

C. The third possible alternative would be to decide now that all the 
decisions made in the past have been right, and by simply ignor- 
ing the problem have the budget for a jet age, increasingly in- 
dustrial and increasingly urban state controlled by values and 
principles which pre-date the idea of an executive budget, which 
pre-date most current programs and which were sound only in 
relation to the agricultural and rural character of the State in the 
days when these principles were first established. 

None of the foregoing alternatives are suggested seriously. They are 
mentioned only to suggest that there are no sensible alternatives to 
meeting the issues of dedicated funds head-on, thereby restoring a 
greater measure of fiscal control to the Legislature. 

The issue that has to be faced squarely is that of a planned budget 
vs. unbudgeted programming. 



The trend in state government finance has been away from the 
planned budfret. The trend instead has been towards greater segment- 
ing and funding of resources and appropriations, other than pursuant 
to an annual budget. Of California 's funds, 37 were created in the past 
decade. Particularly in the recent trend, there is "dedication" of state 
general resources, principally for schools and welfare. 

What has been going on is commonly described by the word "pro- 
gramming." The word implies new, vital study of needs and forward 
planning — which is good ; but unfortunately in much of that new, 
vital "programming" there has been scant attention to the traditional 
basic principle of state budgeting and legislative control as laid down 
by the California Constitution. 


A full discussion of procedures of budgeting and of legislative re- 
view and control of special or general funds, including procedures of 
comprehensive forward planning, would be beyond the scope of this 
report. However, the present status of dedications applying to a large 
part of the total state revenue and expenditure cannot be adequately 
considered without introducing a few basic questions respecting budg- 
eting and legislative control. 

First, should not a modern concept of forward state planning 
he acc-epted in this State? 

"VTe believe that all services of state government, as well as aids 
to local authorities, should be and will be protected by compre- 
hensive advance planning and programming made a part of the 
annual budget process. Above all, there should be and will be 
advance consideration of all tax and other revenue requirements. 
The relatively poor, insecure, and essentially special-interest plan- 
ning, represented by statutory foundation and similar programs, 
will thus become unnecessary. 

Second, recognizing that there are today important "special" 
revenues, notably highway user tax, federal grants, departmental 
fees and earnings, and oil royalties, are there any of these over 
which the state Ugislature must not exercise control? Are there 
any which shoidd be or will be considered as wholly separate and 
distinct from the rest of the state's annual budget? 

"We believe the answer to both of these questions must be an 
unqualified XO. In its budgeting California is now attacking 
"dedication" by trying to achieve a consolidated, comprehensive 
budgeting of some of the special revenues, in spite of the handi- 
cap introduced by the confusing legislation creating many spec- 
ial revenue funds. 

Third, recognizing the existence of various specinl funds, shoidd 
any of these funds' operations be wholly outside the responsibil- 
ity of the Governor in preparing and submitting the state budget 
or outside the responsibility of the legislature? 

To reverse the trend toward "dedication", we suggest that the 
basic principle of complete annual budgeting and legislative con- 


trol must replace the uusoiind principle of "dedication" in all 
state finance. We think the Constitution clearly intends that no 
area of state finance should be outside the annual responsibility 
of the Legislature. 

It is to be conceded, of course, that there will be deposits and 
other monej's which should be held in the state treasury which 
are not owned bj' the State, and they have no direct relation to 
public expenditure or a purpose of producing public revenue, but 
these are not state funds in any sense. They are not unbudgeted 
state funds. 

Notably in the school and welfare commitments against the state's 
general fund, there is "programming" without budgeting. There is 
an assured level of state support for these functions which was set 
without similar "programming" for all other state governmental func- 
tions or consideration of state revenue. There is deliberately a promise 
of continuing a level of support, without forward planning and con- 
sideration of the future requirements of other governmental functions. 
There is deliberately an inflexible dedication, not made subject to re- 
view as part of the process of annual budgeting and not subject to the 
kind of annual review of forecasted needs and revenues which is con- 
templated by the California constitution and by the modern concept of 
* ' program budgeting. ' ' 

We believe that the State of California is as nearly prepared as 
any state to understand and put into effect an effective procedure of 
forward planning and annual program budgeting. This would open 
the way to the elimination of dedications against the state's general 

The best argument in support of these foundation dedications and 
priorities is their close relationship to programs which are also financed 
in part by local governments. When the local governments are planning 
their budgets, they need to know in advance the amount of revenue 
they can expect from the State. The hazard on the other hand is that 
local agencies of government come to regard this income as "free 
money" to be applied toward a higher standard of service than may 
be necessary. 

Both the Legislature and the governing bodies of local government 
ought to be under the obligation to review the relative value of pro- 
grams periodically and to adjust expenditures to the revenue produced 
by a reasonable level of taxation. All this is possible while providing 
local governments with some assurance concerning the State contribu- 
tion and yet without binding the State for a long time by either one 
or two alternatives. 

a. The Legislature can make its commitments one year in advance, 
but for one year only, thus gaining a great deal more flexibility 
than under present arrangements. 

b. The fiscal time table of either the State or the local govenments, 
or both, can be sufficiently adjusted so the final action will have 
been taken on the State budget before the local governments, 
have to make their decision. 

The essence of the problem with which this report deals is that the 
Legislature at a given session, or the people at a given election, have 


decided that what appears to them to be a sound principle at the 
moment shonld be enforced on future generations. This is a wholly 
understandable reaction on the part of people concerned Avith a par- 
ticular function or the securing of a particular program at a given 
time. It overlooks completely, however, the changing character of the 
State, in which new values and new conditions in time invalidate 
earlier principles. 

We think it unsound to commit specific details of fiscal policy to 
rigid legal formulas however sound the principles from which they 
are derived. For example, the State enjoys a substantial income froiji 
public lands, particularly in the form of oil royalties. There is a great 
deal to be said in behalf of the principle that money derived from 
the depletion of a natural resource should not be spent for current op- 
erating expenses, but should be used to create other resources or facili- 
ties of permanent value. To require the Legislature to keep this prin- 
ciple in mind would not be contrary to anything we have said concern- 
ing the handicaps of dedicated funds. To go one step further, however, 
to specify the purposes to which that income should be applied, now 
and in the future, does limit the Legislature's inherent fiscal respon- 
sibility and authority and should not be permitted. 


The most practical immediate attack on dedications of the Special 
Funds would be to establish a strict annual control over the appro- 
priation to the School Fund in excess of that required by the Con- 
stitution. This extra sum, first of all, should not be transferred to 
the School Fund because of a constitutional requirement that all 
moneys in the School Fund be annually distributed for local school 
support. This has resulted in recent years in "bonus" distribution 
running as high as ten million dollars per year. Instead, the Depart- 
ment of Education should be required to bring in a documented budget 
each year to show^ what funds are needed for local school support 
in excess of the constitutional guarantee ; the Legislature should evalu- 
ate that request in relation to all other needs; and the amount ap- 
propriated should be distributed directly from the General Fund ac- 
cording to the formulas on which the request for funds was justified. 

We do not conclude that all special funds must be regarded as in 
conflict with sound principles of state budgeting. In some aspects of 
state budgeting and control by the Legislature, special funds are 
necessary or useful. A comprehensive "program budget" must be a 
multi-fund budget. However, there are only a few types of such funds 
that are necessary. If only necessary funds are retained, effective 
annual budgeting and legislative control will be possible. 

For the purpose of cstablisliing criteria regarding the acceptance or 
rejection of special funds, we identify the following types of finids. 

Group 1, Special funds expendable for state operations, which in- 
clude all moneys, revenue and balances, not reserved, and thus avail- 
able currently for appropriation and expenditure, whether for operation 
of the state general government in the strict sense, or for capital 
outlay. Group 1 excludes only funds set aside as state reserve funds 
and for investment, and for operations necessarily separate and distinct 


from state general government. The Group includes the following types 
of funds: 

Funded proceeds of bond sales for general government. 

Funded appropriations for state construction. 

Funded state debt service. 

Taxes shared with local governments. 

State dedications of general tax revenues. 

Dedications of special revenues, including: 

User taxes for highways; 

Fees for regulatory services; 

Other departmental fees and charges; 

Grants and contributions; 

Trust funds which are expendable for governmental operations. 

Oil royalties. 
Clearance funds — revenue passed from fund to fund. 
Kevolving working capital for some of the state governmental 

Funded appropriations for operations. 
Feeder funds (for refund operations). 
Payroll clearing account (for payroll operations). 
Other expendable nominal funds — legally dictated or other hold- 
ing of moneys (outside the state treasury or in other separate 


Group 2, Invested capital funds, which include the state's planned 
reserve funds and provision for income producing investments, as 
follows : 

Endowment funds 
Stabilization funds 
Reserves for construction 
Sinking funds, for term debt only 
Pooled investments of cash balances 

Group 3, Funds for segregated operations and entities, which in- 
clude only working capital which the existence of commercial type 
activities and any segregated entities of state government implies and 
makes necessary, plus deposits and trusts with no public expenditure 
or revenue. This group should be defined to exclude any surpluses of 
state owned entities which could be and should be made available for 
general state operations. One goal of budget control must be to prevent 
the holding of excessive capital for any entity or operation. This Group 
includes the following types: 

Funds of autonomous, strictly governmental agencies, if any. 
Insurance funds, including insurance trust funds and pension 

Loan funds. 

Funds of enterprises (including commercial type activities in insti- 
tutions, ports and toll roads) 
Working capital for such intra-government services as state pur- 
chasing, stores, shops, printing, etc. 
Special assessment funds. 

Funded deposits and Trusts with no public expenditure or revenue 
and suspense funds. 



Most of the funds in Group 1 (Special funds expendable for state 
operations) are objectionable on the grounds that (1) they complicate 
accounting, (2) most of them hold idle expendable resources, and (3) 
most of them are dedications. Each objection is discussed more fully 

Accounting. There should be a comprehensive general fund, 
and thus very clear general financial statements. As to the funds 
in this group, each special fund law obstructs correct accounting 
for resources and tends to hide them. In every case of accounting 
under a special fund law, preoccupation with law prevents objec- 
tive, scientific consideration of the real accounting requirements. 
Nevertheless the accounting for a fund must be complex or it lacks 
control of receivables, encumbrances and current payables. Produc- 
ing correct figures for costs of functions and activities with support 
by more than one fund is a serious complicating problem. 

Holding Idle Resources. The general fund can and should be 
holding all working capital for general government operations. 
Every dedicated special fund in this group is based in part on a 
confused concept, in effect asserting that a dedication of special 
revenues or other resources cannot be carried out without the 
present practice of holding millions of idle fund balances in a 
hundred pools. 

Advocates of dedicated special funds in this group are in effect 
asserting without offering any budget justification, that the activi- 
ties in question require this reserved capital. If any general govern- 
ment or other activities do require any part of this reserved 
capital, this is something to be proved, and a special reserve fund 
(of the type in Group 2) should be provided. 

In effect we are saying that by not identifying clearly the pur- 
pose of expendable funds, and by not requiring that annual budget- 
ing should prevent unnecessary holding of state resources, millions 
of dollars are being held to meet a future year 's budgeted require- 

We believe that only the advocates of the highway dedications 
would seriously maintain that it makes sense to hold large cash 
resources idle, and we find it difficult to concede that there ought 
to be unauthorized idle moneys of any kind. 

Dedication in lieu of budgeting for requirements. In the case 
of every dedication, special fund or not, the result of the dedication 
may be a rich activity or a poor activity, because there are special 
resources. There will be as many standards as to wliat is a neces- 
sary ])ublic expenditure as there are dedications. However, legally 
dictated accounting, or holding of idle resources, and a special 
budget status, may well contribute to the inequities, causing them 
to be greater in case of any dedicated special fund. 

Despite the general objections raised to the Group 1 type of special 
funds, there are some which can be justified. 


1. Four types of the funds of this group may be unavoidable : 

a. Some bond indentures prescribe that the proceeds of the bond 
issue must be cleared through or held in a special fund. 

b. Some bond indentures prescribe special funds for debt service. 

c. Some of the grants and contributions may be administered 
under rules dictated by donors. These rules ought not prescribe 
special funds, but may. 

d. Some trusts may arbitrarily require the setting up of special 
expendable funds for state operations they support. Rendering 
an account as trustee should be the only requirement. 

2. In addition to these unavoidable funds, many other funds asso- 
ciated with construction may seem to be at least harmless. There 
are theories of budgeting which would treat capital outlay financ- 
ing as a segregated part of the state financial plan. We would 
concede that a few unnecessary expendable special funds — if they 
are all related to construction exclusively — might not be a serious 
complication of the budget. 

3. If by consolidations and eliminations, there remained only a few 
general government expendable special funds, regardless of their 
purpose, they should all be reviewed annually, so that the financial 
position of the State may be understandable and budgeting may 
not be seriously impeded. 

In addition to the foregoing general objections to many of the special 
funds, the following more detailed comments concerning some of them 
deserve consideration. 

All of the special funds once seemed logical or they would not have 
been created, and many may seem logical today, but they all, collectively, 
prevent there being a true general fund, and confuse and complicate 
the State's financial statements and also the accounting for many gov- 
ernmental activities. Nearly all funds hold idle resources. As a general 
rule the basic objection to a special fund is that it is a "dedication" 
of both the revenue and the balance of the fund. 

Funded Proceeds of Bond Sales. These comments apply equally to 
general government issues and to issues for enterprises. It is appro- 
priate to comment first on funds holding the proceeds of bond sales 
because, in almost all cases, they present the issue of funding versus 
accounting control. If bonds are authorized for stated purposes, the 
proceeds are already appropriated or de facto dedicated, but on this 
ground alone a special fund is not necessary. Accounting control can be 
exercised to assure that the authorized purpose of each issue is satisfied. 
Adequate safeguards need to be established to assure that between the 
time of the sale of the bonds and the time the proceeds are spent for 
an authorized purpose, they are not spent for some other purpose. How- 
ever, the state's general fund accounting control is such a safeguard, 
and perhaps a better safeguard than the control actually exercised if 
there is a special fund. 

However, in typical cases of bond funds of special purpose issues, 
the state may have no reason not to accept a provision in the bond in- 
denture prescribing a special fund, simply to conform with common 


If it is argued that tlie terms and interest cost of a loan are affected 
favorably by prescribinp- a special fnnd for bond proceeds, this type of 
special fund need not be allowed to cause the holding of uninvested 
idle cash or to obstruct annual state budgeting. Even the desirable rule 
of budgeting for construction that prescribes showing the entire picture 
in each annual budget, can be complied with. 

If it is necessary in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding to 
provide a separate bond proceeds fund, it scarcely seems necessary to 
provide a separate fund for each bond issue. It should be adequate to 
use a single Bond Proceeds Fund, in which all such moneys will be 
held with adequate accounting recognition of the separate identity of 
each purpose. 

Funded Appropriations for Construction. There are desirable prac- 
tices of combined forward planning, programming, and annual bud- 
geting for construction, without special funds or even non-lapsing 
appropriations. In contrast, the relationship of various existing special 
funds in the budget for capital outlay to a pi'actice of forward planning 
and programming is a very confused one. The present special funds in 
this major area of state responsibility operate to obstruct and postpone 
making a proper start in comprehensive capital planning and bud- 

So long as there is an accepted practice of borrowing, it can be 
argued that state construction, including or excluding highwaj^s, is in 
fact a separate and distinct area of planning and budgeting. Presum- 
ably even the possibility of borrowing implies that capital outlay is a 
distinct problem. However, there is the very important possibility of 
so planning as to reduce borrowing and save millions in interest costs. 
We believe that capital outlay is a major segment of, and an integrated 
part of, comprehensive state operations planning, programming, and 
budgeting; and that special funds are a competing and conflicting 

Funded State Debt Service. Any incurring of debt in effect consti- 
tutes a dedication of funds for the repayment of principal and the 
payment of interest. If the debt is incurred to build a facilit}" or create 
a service which Avill produce direct income from its users or bene- 
ficiaries, it may be appropriate to set up a special fund into which 
these proceeds will be paid and will be held pending their expenditure 
for interest, or to retire the debt. In all other circumstances, however, 
there is no need to com])ound the fiscal problems of the State by both 
recognizing that the debt is an obligation to which a portion of the 
State's money is dedicated, and setting up a special fund tlirough which 
to finance this obligation. 

Taxes Shared with Local Government. There should be very small 
balances held in such accounls. What makes this one of the objectionable 
types of special funds is that provisions of the laAV prescribing such a 
fund are most likely to dictate a large holding of idle cash. 

In any where the State serves as a collection agency, to gather 
a tax in behalf of both itself and agencies of local government, there 
should be no question about the earmarking of the portion of the funds 
intended for the local governments. This does not necessarily require 


a special fund, but merely the reserving by accounting practices of 
that portion of the revenue which is intended for distribution to the 
local agencies. 

Dedications of Special Revenues — "User" Taxation, Fees and 
Charges. There are a great many departmental fees and charges and 
some taxes where the payments are made by a special group which 
considers itself entitled to receive stated governmental services. The 
most notable such "user fund" is the highway fund, receiving its in- 
come directly or indirectly from license fees and taxes on motor ve- 
hicles and motor vehicle fuels, and dedicated completely to the con- 
struction and maintenance of highways and streets. The advocates of a 
special fund for this purpose can point to considerable achievement 
in California's highway system, and can further point to the need for 
a continuing high level of support to meet the highway deficiencies 
which still exist. "What they cannot prove is that the highway system 
would now be worse off had the Legislature had a freer hand in ap- 
propriating money for highway purposes. 

There is a powerful argument to the effect that without some limita- 
tion on the purposes for which gasoline taxes can be spent, there would 
be an easy temptation to increase this tax for general purposes, since 
it is so easily collected and yields a rich return. But this argument 
applies with equal force to taxes on liquor and tobacco, on general 
retail sales, and on income. If we carry this argument to its logical 
conclusion, the proceeds of every tax should be wholly committed or 
dedicated. Each new service would then have to be accompanied by a 
new kind of tax on something else. The Legislature's control over 
expenditures would be reduced to practically nothing while its respon- 
sibility for raising revenue would become more critical. 

The special user funds seldom fulfill exactly their intent of relating 
a charge to a benefit. Some of them, such as the highway fund, generally 
hold large idle balances, while others may be so "poor" that the activity 
they intend to support is neglected, or support is supplemented by the 
General Fund. 

Since we can find no logical basis for justifying one "user fund" 
while not justifying others, and since the recognition of all such funds 
would lead to the nullification of the Legislature 's authority in financial 
matters, we can only conclude that no user special fund can be justified. 

Assuming that the policy of building highways at the expense of the 
users, as measured by vehicle ownership and fuel usage is valid, a 
general policy to that effect can be declared and observed without the 
costly and confusing mechanism of special funds. 

Dedications of Special Revenue: Regulatory Funds. These are a 
particular category of "user" fund. When professional or vocational 
groups seek State licensing for their own protection, or when a phase 
of private business is put under State control (notably the financial 
institutions), it has often been the practice to support regulation by 
license fees or other assessments on those regulated, and to administer 
the program through a special fund. The practice is not universal; 
there are regulatory activities for which fees are charged but deposited 
in the General Fund. 


There is no sound reason for special funds for regulating agencies. 
It implies that regulation is for the regulated group alone, whereas it 
must be assumed to be in the public interest as well. If it is not in the 
public interest, it should not be a State function. If it is in the public 
interest, there is no reason why license fees and related assessments 
should not be in the General Fund. 

Moreover, the fact that by use of special funds these activities are 
generallj' regarded as self-supporting, leads the administration and the 
Legislature to be more lenient in reviewing proposed expenditures. In 
some States this "double standard" has gone to the extent of permit- 
ting different salary standards for employees doing the same kind of 
work because one department can afford high salaries while another 

If the Legislature, as a matter of policy, wishes to approve expendi- 
tures for the regulatory agencies in relation to the amount of revenue 
they generate, it should be free to do so. But it should be a conscious 
policy decision in each case ; not an automatic occurrence as at present. 

Dedicated Grants and Contributions. If grants (federal or other) 
are offered the State for purposes that are approved by the state offi- 
cials, including the state legislature, the acceptance of such moneys 
implies a desired "dedication." However, there should be both budg- 
etary^ control and legislative appropriation. Very often there are match- 
ing appropriations or matching commitments of special fund resources, 
yet this kind of dedication, jjer se should not require the setting up of 
the moneys in a special fund. It requires only accounting to prove per- 
formance of the terms of the grant. The important condition to justify 
a special fund, if anj'', is that the contributor should have required this 
segregation of funds as a condition of the contribution. Unless this is 
true, there is no particular point in keeping the fund apart. If condi- 
tions are imposed it almost necessarily follows that the State must 
accept and observe those conditions if it is to accept the funds. 

Trust Funds Expendable for Governmental Operations. The word 
"trust" has a great manj^ different meanings in public administration. 
Wherever there is or may be a third party interest, it may be considered 
that there is a trust. According to a body of law wholW distinct from 
administrative law, it is not generally permissible to intermingle trust 
and private funds of the trustees. To apply this rule of law to public 
funds might mean that practically all existing special funds would have 
to be retained. 

We believe it unreasonable to require the State of California to 
segregate any moneys that are expendable for governmental operations 
because they are said to be "trust" funds. If the State as.sumes tempo- 
rary custody of the funds, it should need only to keep a faithful ac- 
count, and surely can be deemed honorable enough to restore these 
funds to their rightful place on the termination of the trust. In the 
meantime, these funds could mingle with otliers for better treasury 
management and easier accounting. 

As an alternative to eliminating numerous trust funds entirely, a 
single Trust Fund might be established with separate accounts to be 
maintained for each purpose. 


Clearance Funds. These are special funds serving no purpose except 
to be the temporary intermediary for money being transferred from one 
or more sources to one or more purposes. They are a poor and confusing 
substitute for simple accounting procedures which would show the 
sources of revenue and the objects of expenditure. The worst example 
is the several ' ' funds ' ' through which vehicle license and highway user 
revenues pass in the course of being distributed to state and local high- 
way and road purposes. 

Revolving Funds. The word "revolving" attached to the name of 
a fund may or may not mean that it relates to a fully self-supporting 
activity. In fact, relatively lax budgetary controls over such funds leave 
some doubt about their exact condition. With proper accounting, and 
with the proper forecasting of revenue and expenditure needs many 
functions now provided for through revolving funds could be handled 
by way of regular appropriations. Nevertheless, some revolving funds 
will continue to exist. They should be subject to the same budget and 
accounting standards and practices as are applied to the General Fund. 

Funded Appropriations for State Operations. The Assembly and 
Senate contingent funds exist in order to assure the independence of 
the Legislature from executive control. Were the Governor to veto an 
appropriation for legislative operations after the Legislature had ad- 
journed, these contingent funds make it possible for the T^egislature to 
continue its interim programs. 

An alternative method v/hich could be used to insure the independ- 
ence of the Legislature without necessitating a special fund is one by 
which the Legislature could make a continuing appropriation (say 
$300,000 for the Senate and $500,000 for the Assembly) for its own 
appropriations without reference to fiscal years. Such legislation would 
be expressed as follows: 

"Beginning July 1, and every July 1 thereafter there is 

appropriated the sum of $ for the expenses of the Senate and 

$ for the expenses of the Assembly." 

Feeder Funds. In some instances, funds are held outside the State 
Treasury for a period pending deposit, in order to have more flexibility 
in making refunds and adjustments on items paid in error or under 
protest. The theory has been that once the money is deposited in the 
treasury, it cannot be refunded except by legislative appropriation. 

The idea that there should be a place outside the State Treasury 
where funds can be left, even temporarily, opens up dangerous possi- 
bilities. The point that there should be an easy mechanism for refund 
is valid. To be consistent with desirable principles of budgetary con- 
trol, the special suspense or holding funds should be abolished, and 
instead there should be an annual appropriation, or authorization by 
the Legislature of an amount sufficient to make the necessary refunds, 
subject to pre-audit to assure adherence to prescribed standards. 

Other Expendable Nominal Funds. We use the term ' ' nominal ' ' to 
refer to any special fund, such as the Feeder Funds just discussed, 
where pursuant to law or practice, state moneys are being held outside 
the State Treasury or in special accounts, or other purely fiscal pro- 
cedures have the effect of holding back moneys. The principal example 


of nominal funds in California may well be balances held outside the 
state treasury for Avhich comprehensive data are not available. An ob- 
vious objective of efficient fiscal procedure is to eliminate all nominal 


In the foregoing discussion virtually all of the Group 1 special funds 
(those expendable for operations) have been found objectionable, both 
on specific grounds and on the general premise that the basic principle 
of budgeting expenditure and revenue prescribed by the California 
Constitution cannot be effective so long as balances of available state 
resources are held in more than a hundred special fund pools. For all 
of the preceding expendable funds for state operations, the general 
fund should hold the resources in one pool. IIoMcver, for orderly plan- 
ning of state finance, like the orderly planning of any individual's 
fiiunices, there sliould be reserves of invested capital. 

"We should have a conspicuous small group of Invested Capital 
Funds fully identified as to purpose and unmistakable as capital funds. 

Several of the types of funds in question now exist, but there is 
totally lacking at present a concentration of reserved capital in a few 
unmistakable funds. Instead of planned and controlled reserves, moneys 
necessary to create such reserves lie idle in a hundred expendable 
funds because they are "dedicated." 

Endowment Funds. There is today a non-expendable endowment 
fund called School Land Fund. There are other endowment funds out- 
side the State Treasury, at least at the University of California. 

Stabilization Funds. "Whenever the general income exceeds expendi- 
tures to any considerable extent, it may be Avise to consider establishing 
a stal)lization or "rainy day" account, as a hedge against drastic tax 
increases in less prosperous times. There are many policy considerations 
inherent in the decision as to whether or not such a stabilization fund 
should be provided. Our point here is not to debate those policy ques- 
tions, but rather to suggest that whenever such a stabilization pro- 
cedure is decided upon, then a special fund is justified to hold these 
moneys in reserve. In that case, adequate legal protection sliould be 
made to preserve the fund against raids for purposes not originally 

Reserves for Construction. Some of the existing fund balances may 
reflect a nebulous special-fund kind of reserving of capital for state 
construction, but examining the capital outlay budget, there is no evi- 
dence of a state policy at this time of reserving available state resources 
for future construction. The State Construction Program Fund was not 
conceived as such a fund. We recommend that there be such a fund 
as soon as there is forward financial planning for con.struction, with 
a minimum resort to borrowing. 

Sinking Funds: (for term debt). We mention this type of invested 
capital funds merely to round out the picture of necessary funds hold- 
ing reserved capital. 


Pooled Investments of Cash Balances. The Surplus Money Invest- 
ment Fund is a unique example of a very wise and profitable kind of in- 
vested capital fund. 

Segregated Operations and Entities. Because there have been 
strong departments of state government, and strong groups interested 
in particular programs, and there has not always been emphasis on the 
basic principle of unified, strong budgetary and legislative state opera- 
tions, funds referred to above have sometimes been created which seem 
to imply a degree or color of departmental or agency autonomy. How- 
ever, we do not interpret any laws as establishing a clear policy of 
autonomy, to the extent of exempting an agency from the constitutional 
provision respecting budgeting or implying any delegation of powers 
belonging to the State Legislature. 

The term ' ' segregated ' ' in this State is not applicable to departmental 
funds generally. It is applicable to insurance funds, commercial or busi- 
ness types of activities, some similar intra-government service opera- 
tions, etc., where separate management and fund accounting is obviously 
necessary, as described below. 

Funds of Autonomous strictly Governmental Agencies. If there 
are any such funds, they must have a basis in a clear State policy. 

Perhaps tuition and any similar special funds of the University of 
California are such funds. 

Advocates of a special fund for the highway program may contest 
our not finding an intention to grant autonomy in this case. They may 
argue that unbudgeted working capital is necessary for a highway fund. 
We concede that programming for state highways is a serious and long- 
range problem of state government operations, but the same is true in 
varying degrees of every other activity of state government. 

Insurance Funds. "Where contributions or premiums have been paid 
in, whether or not matched by the State, to establish the basis for sub- 
sequent repayment to the contributors or their beneficiaries, or to a 
general class of beneficiaries, there is an obligation to invest and manage 
these funds for the sole benefit of the beneficiaries. This is, perhaps, the 
purest justification of a special fund. It is the preserving inviolate of 
funds contributed to fulfill an insurance contract at some later date. 
The budgeting of such funds should clearly be apart from the general 
state operations budget. 

Loan Funds. There are several important loan activities financed 
and managed by the State with respect to which there is necessarily 
accounting for capital. Having comprehensive separate and distinct 
accounting for each such operation is desirable. It would be a serious 
mistake to fail to keep segregated fund accounts for them. 

Funds for Enterprises. Whether the activity is a major one or is 
incidental to the operation of a state institution, if the correct account- 
ing principle is that of a commercial or business-type entry, it would 
be a serious mistake not to provide an appropriate degree of autonomy, 
segregated capital, and proper enterprise accounting. 

The status of the State Fair and of State-operated toll bridges is that 
of a self -financing quasi-enterprise, and a special fund may be accepted 
as necessary in order to maintain their status as such. 


Intra-government Services Working Capital. Some operations are 
in a different category from enterprises only in that they provide serv- 
ices solely to departments of the state fjovernment and the usual reve- 
nues are transfers from state appropriations. If supported by special 
funds, however, they are subject to comments made earlier about "re- 
volving funds." 

Funded Deposits and Trusts with no Public Expenditure or Reve- 
nue. It is obviously not always necessary for moneys deposited with 
tlie State Treasury to be held in a special fund, even if in some cases 
the deposit is held to be a trust deposit. In eifcct, the Treasurer can 
hold deposits in the general fund in the same manner that ordinary 
deposits or escrow or trust accounts are held by a bank. 

However, there may be acceptable special funds for deposits of that 
kind which are in fact segregated operations. Since there is no relation 
to operations of state funds and to state budgeting, the only important 
consideration is the question of investing idle cash balances. Under state 
laws these balances can be invested, separately or as a part of the 
Surplus Money Investment Fund. 


If the criteria proposed in the foregoing section are adopted and ap- 
plied, only the following special accounts and funds would be required : 

1. Special revenue clearance accounts 

For vehicle license fees and highway user taxes shared with local 

For alcoholic beverage license taxes shared with local governments. 

2. Grants and contributions (funded only if so prescribed by the 

donor as a condition of the grant or contribution) 
Public Health — Federal Fund 
Social Welfare — Federal F'und 
Unemploj^ment Administration Fund 
Vocational Education Federal Fund 
Vocational Rehabilitation — Federal Fund 
Water Resources Revolving Fund 
State Park Contingent Fund 

3. Bond Proceeds Funds (a single fund in lieu of separate funds now 

established for each bond issue.) 

4. Debt Service Funds (non-enterprise ; only if prescribed by the bond 

State Buildings Sinking and Interest Fund 
Bond Sinking Fund of 1943 
Flood Control Fund of 1946 
Postwar Unemployment and Construction 
School Bond Retirement 

California State Park Interest & Sinking Fund 
Highway Interest and Sinking Funds, 1, 2 and 3 

5. Invested Capital — Ccneral 
Endowment funds of institutions 
Stabilization fund (if autliorized) 
Surplus Money Investment Fund 


6. Invested Capital — Insurance and Pension Trusts 

Compensation Insnrance Fnnd 

Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund 

Old Age and Survivors Insurance Revolving Fund 

Judges' Retirement Fund 

Legislators ' Retirement Fund 

State Employees' Retirement Fund 

Teachers' Retirement Fund 

7. Governmental Autonomous Agency- 
University of California special revenues 

8. Loan Funds 

Local Projects Assistance Fund 

Veterans Farm and Home Building Fund of 1943 

Public School Building Loan Fund 

State School Building Loan Fund 

Revenue Deficiency Reserve 

9. Enterprises 

California Industries for the Blind Manufacturing Fund 

Correctional Industries Revolving Fund 

Inmate Welfare Fund 

Opportunity Work Center Fund 

Toll Bridge Authority Revolving Fund 

College Auxiliary Enterprise Fund 

State Harbor Operations 

10. Debt Service Funds: Enterprises 

San Francisco Harbor Improvement Fund 

San Francisco Harbor Revenue Bond Fund 

India Basin Sinking Fund 

San Francisco Seawall Sinking Fund No. 2 

San Francisco Seawall Sinking Fund No. 3 

San Francisco Seawall Sinking Fund No. 4 

San Francisco Seawall Fund No. 4 

San Francisco Harbor Construction (Series A) Fund 

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Revenue Fund 

Olympic Bond Fund 

11. Intra- Government Services Working Capital 

Ballot Paper Revolving Fund 

Printing Fund 

Purchasing Revolving Fund 

Surplus Educational Property Revolving Fund 

All remaining special funds, and all fixed dedications of portions of 
the general fund, would be abolished or repealed as rapidly as amend- 
ments to statutes, initiative measures and the constitution can be made 

The net effects of these actions would be to eliminate the uncontrolled 
annual expenditures for operating and capital outlay purposes; and 
would make available for better fixed control, accumulated special fund 
balances totalling approximately $376,000,000, 


Priorities. Since it is unlikely that all special funds can be abolished 
and all dedications of the General Fund repealed at one time, considera- 
tion might be given to setting priorities to the groups set forth below, 
each of which brings together funds of a given type, to which a given 
set of conditions or arguments apply. 

1. Separate Professional and Vocational Standard Funds. 

In 1959 the Legislature acted to consolidate these into a single 
Professions and Vocatioas Fund. Tlie Controller and Attorney 
General believe the measure is defective, hence the old funds re- 
main separate and the new fund holds no money. Pending later 
possible action on the whole subject of regulatory funds, the 1959 
action should be amended to correct its defects. This would abolish 
special funds of the following agencies : 


Architectural Examiners 

Athletic Commission 

Barber Examiners 


Contractors' License Board 

Cosmetology Contingent 


Dry Cleaners 

Funeral Directors and Embalmers 

Furniture and Bedding Inspection 

Landscape Architects 

Medical Examiners Contingent 

Nurse Examiners 


Pharmacy Board 

Physical Therapy 

Private Investigators and Adju.sters 

Professional Engineers 

Registered Social Workers 

Shortliand Reporters 

Structural Pest Control 

Veterinary Examiners Contingent 

Vocational Nurse Examiners 

Yacht and Ship Brokers 

2. Other Begulatory Funds. 

This report has recommended that all regulatory funds be abol- 
ished. Tlie action just proposed to complete consolidation of the 
Professions and Vocations Funds is only a partial step toward that 
objective. The full list of those which should be abolished is as 
follows : 


Chiropractic Examiners 

Collection Agency Board 


Itinerant Merchants 


Pilot Commissioners 

Real Estate 


Savings and Loan Inspection 

Transportation Rate 

Architecture Public Building 

Petroleum and Gas 

Dairy Products Trust 

Professional and Vocational Standards Fund 

Real Estate Education and Research Fund 

Professions and Vocations Fund 

3. State Government Operation Fund. 

These are special funds whose source is the General Fund, or a 
special tax, or fee not regulatory in character, and which support 
functions which should be supported by direct appropriation. Both 
because of this reason and because the Legislature should set an 
example, we propose early elimination of the following funds : 

Redemption Tax 

State Beach and Park 

State College 

Assembly Contingent 

Highway Right-of-Way Acquisition 

Legislative Printing 

Senate Contingent 

Vocational Education 

Wild Life Restoration 

Yuba River Debris Control 

State "Water Pollution Control Fund 

Surplus Educational Property Revolving Fund 

Water Commission Revolving Fund 

Agricultural Building Fund 

Southern Crossing Engineering Fund 

Tax-deeded Land Rental Trust Fund 

Medical Care Premium Deposit Fund 

Highway Properties Rental Fund 

Peace Officers Training Fund 

Subsidence Abatement Fund 

Soil Conservation Development Fund 

4. Feeder Funds. 

In discussing criteria we pointed out the hazards of these funds, 
in which money is held prior to deposit in the Treasury, to facili- 
tate refunds. We recommend that the Legislature either authorize 
a refund procedure or annually appropriate an amount from the 
General Fund, out of which duly authorized refunds may be made 
for all purposes, with adjustments to be made each year by ap- 
propriation from any special fund of the refunds chargeable to 
it. On this basis the following Special Funds may be abolished: 

Employment Contingent 

Alcoholic Beverage Control 

Bank and Corporation Tax 

Gift Tax 

Personal Income Tax 

Retail Sales Tax 

Cigarette Tax Fund 

Inheritance Tax Fund 


5. Foundation Support. 

Here we deal mainly with dedication of a portion of the General 
Fund. The lively interest in adequate financinf]^ for schools and 
for welfare should not discourage an annual evaluation of these 
needs in relation to other needs and the State's total financial 
resources. The dedications immediately in question are : 
Apportionments to Public Schools 
Apportionments to Categorical aids in Welfare 

6. Bond Proceeds Funds. 

A single fund has been proposed, with separate accounting for 
each bond issue, into which would be consolidated all of the fol- 
lowing present separate funds, and in which would be included 
the proceeds of all future bond sales. 

Carquinez-Straits Bridges Construction Fund 
Eichmoud-San Rafael Bridge Construction Fund 
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Construction Fund 
State Construction Program Fund 
California State Park Funds 

7. Trust Funds. 

We have recommended that all Trust Funds be abolished. If any 
degree of special protection is desired, then a single Trust Fund 
should be established. All balances in existing Trust Funds should 
be transferred to it, and all future trust transactions sliould be 
administered through it. 

8. Clearance Funds. 

In those cases w^here a fund is used solely to receive money from 
an outside source or another state fund, for no other purpose than 
to transfer it to another fund, or to local governments, the special 
fund serves no useful purpose. The monej- may as well go directly 
from source to object, with an accounting record of receipts and 

We recommend that consideration be given to studying the 
feasibility of eliminating some of the following funds. The kind 
of transaction it "clears" is shown for each fund: 

a. The Fair and Exposition Fund receives a share of the horse 
race betting proceeds and the proceeds of realty sales by Dis- 
trict Agricultural Association and distributes these to the 
Horse Racing Board for administrative expenses and to the 
Department of Finance for supervision of fairs. 

b. The State School Fund receives proceeds from public land 
holdings, interest from investments and transfers from the 
General Fund, all of which are in turn applied to the local 
school support. 

e. The Highway Users Tax Fund, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Fund, 
the Motor Vehicle Transportation Tax Fund and the Motor 
Vehicle Fund receive money from various motor vehicle and 
fuel revenues for transfers to the Highway Fund and to local 


Special User Funds. 

The stiff opposition to all efforts to "divert" highway funds, 
makes it obvious that from a practical standpoint, the abolishing 
of these special user funds vs^ould be difficult, but we find little 
logic on their side. The funds involved are : 

Fish and Game Preservation 


Motor Vehicle 

Poultry Testing Project 

Flood Project Maintenance Revolving Fund 

Watermaster Service Fund 


We are dealing here with an exceedingly complex problem. There are 
funds and priorities on the General Fund; the amount of money is 
large; the constitution and initiative enactments as well as statutes 
are involved ; and powerful interests will stoutly defend every estab- 
lished dedication of funds. It would be unrealistic to suggest that the 
entire problem can be solved by one swift stroke. 

We recommend, instead, that the following steps be taken : 

1. That bills be introduced to eliminate the funds found to be the 
least justified. 

2. That a constitutional amendment be referred to the people em- 
bodying the criteria proposed in this report, and requiring the 
Legislature to abolish all funds inconsistent with the criteria. 

That a constitutional amendment be offered which would require 
the Legislature to re-examine each dedicated or special fund at 
regular intervals after its creation, with authority to discon- 
tinue it. 

3. Tliat the Legislature enlist the interest of civic groups concerned 
with state finance, to the end that the problem will be better 
understood and support for its solution will be gained. 

4. That pending adoption of constitutional amendments, the Legis- 
lature commit itself as a matter of policy to observe the proposed 

5. That sub-committees be assigned by the Assembly Committee on 
Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance to give 
continuing attention to the problem, to develop public interest and 
support, to plan the orderly abolishment of unjustfied dedications 
or funds, and to prevent new dedications and funds which do not 
qualify according to the criteria. 




The following reproduction of Schedule 4 from the 1960-61 
Governor's Budget disclosed the current income, expense and 
balances in the special funds. 



3 ^ (U 


■<r o -^ 

CDO 1-*^ 



»0 -^ GO 1— I (M 

co^Oi->o I-": 

I O) Oi O -^ OO OO 

lOCOOt^O COb-COi-Hk 

C^C^O .-H CDO '^C^i-HiOt* 


'-HOoOO-f o 
»0 1-H lO O »C lO 




O O OO -^ t-- 
■^ <o r- o T-< 

c>j M- c^ -rr 

"^ oo oo 

.-H uo I <ari 

C:.Oi ■►-I 

1— . -H GO 

J '-H CO oo :o t* »-H t- cq 

3 lO <M CD ~ ' 

O CD IQ CO CO Ol 05 C^ 

t^ 1-HicoOOi 
CD t* »-H t- cq 

O I— ' t^ CD r^ 

CO aTi-r-^* CD 


c^t^oo>— <-rt<ooo 

^fM* »0 CO C^" lO CO »0 

UOt^ 1-H <N T-H 


iC iOO lO O 

»^ 05 CD ■• 


Ir^O t^iM 

OO— 'OO 










■ CO (M "^ -^ 

OS CO r- CD o o 

oo CD O -"-■ oo 

CO »0 t^ O r- 1 


Ol -^ CC CO 

•tt cooc m 

CD lO'iO t^ 
1-H o: •* -^ 

lOi-ToToo — r 

oo (M GO Oi oo (M 00 00 "^ b- CO CO lO 

:o O"^ CD 

oo ■n' CM 00 »-i 


— ('^(M"^C^iOt--00 

fl & c 

+ Ii2 

"Tt^ T-H CD C^ GO 

I M Iji 


CD i>^ 1— * uo oT ^-Toc'ic o" --r t^ 



Oi-*i oo O OO 

iO CD -^ O C 

5 — ooo t^ 

iC 1-- CO O -f CO 

ooo -f 

,-H ,-( oo 

3 oo 00 CO -^ 

OliO^r r-t CO(MOOCOt^ OiOOC 

_ -WD— 'O'^*' 

—I C<I t-li-H OCOtH 


; oo ir^ Oi 

1 CO O Ci CO 

CD.-40CD M< 


<M — t 

^ Tt^O^O 

lO O CO — ' »C O'*000»00'^ 


^ (M OCD 




OJ t^CT. 

00 "O "Tf O OO 

CO U5«5— I 



O O C^ U^ iC — < 

CD CO —" CO no r- 

o'cD -rr -^"cJ" ^ 

-^ asooc^ i-^ csi 

CO ID -^07 10 —* 

CO — r i>r 


oascMO CO 

— —(COO — " 

»0— T-rro" CD* 

lOcDOO «M 

(M —I fM^ 

ic oo Tj* lO 

COI>^00^ CS)^ 


■n^ lO CO 05 

t^OOO —I 

co't-Too — r 

CM (M 

cDI>-COO— 'O-^CO 


-(M»0»0— 1*0— <05 

Ah Pi 

•rt^ CO "^ Tt< 1— ( CO ^H 
*0 O t~* lO O »D 

»0 CO Oi -^ CO ■^ 

CD O t-* lO (M oo 05 — ' (M CO -^ O 1-- C^ 


_ _-t^r>.o50ooooo 

























03 O, 

Ofa t:' 


F-l M 

.2 a 

■K-r.-S-T^ -?tW 

->>> >-S 

^ M.S C m ca 

a OOQW fa 


o p 
o o 



— ^ 3 

fc^ £fa § 

S to "2 2 


■a a. 2 




O J3 — 

S a;3<-' a 

a 3'^ >, 3 

rtfa S2 M^ 

a a S g 

ra O) o o ^ 






&«OC — nacr^e — x « ■^ x &ie— c-rC-r 

c= —-'-^'crx'cr— *r- x" c"-r le'tfrr* c* x'x' Vic — x' 
— « — ic — — ?*« e^i-.w —^'-■4 

C-: r« .— ^ r« O^c x 

■C "C w 

e CtOC — s^ 


•s" C c x" •.•;■ •o" 

e« — a s ts ,<c« 

+ + 


3 Ih 


S — r; — = r^r- — r« r-cicxci 

3C ^ re ic -^ s •»■ — -^ — -^icr* 

Sf^ — -^rt -^e* — oc « w — ci 

ce « "V PC « cc 

e 3c — 
1- — e 

• •C ^^ C — 

c^« I e* 


■o«ec«eccoc prccc« coo 
•c e — dfcC o — o«c r:o»it«^ cc« 
r-cicr-ir:0— ex ■cOd«r* ei-r: 
•^"— "— "i* y"o'o' ^'t'^ •5* O* x x' ^' L~?^?f X X c^ 

»c ^ » c 

»c — r< — Si 

I -^ ff« C -^ — CM 

p^-?--^c:COXX r:*cx--x 

: X X -T«c I- t- ^ 

■ -- -■— -ct c c- -- 
:"o" «*•=:'? 

c« »c !-•?;•«: -^ — « 


ofc ^ — rie 



t»x o 

£ 5 5it«s 


-r- ^ ^ 3C 3C 
«C S: X rtic 

^ I'- e 1- o 






T -^ 




' III 


« ^ r* ^ e PC X M c: ci -?■ — 5e 

r« C-. «; X X = 

tctc — r< — <: — xS •si--T-=:r-: i--rc -j — =:--jri ^ ci-x =x 

:" x" r:" =" c;' 1 -='=.' Pc" ss" = =.' 5= x" •ec'x" i-i'i-"«s' cT =:"i-o" c'-^" 

:«c»C' •;; — *— c:r-;r*— x r*c— CO — — — -^ r^^-c — «» 

!_-?; — o 
c rr X te 


X — — — cxos r«ct-xr 

« cc •=■_-? 5_sr — x_ -^_£_x_«t 

— PC — i-T— ^cT— "rc't^ wcTx't'^c* 

pcce — C = -r~ -~ 
C-; cc -^ r* 

« — r« — f-- 

X C C •-££S 

— c c* c -^_o_S_ 

C*x*0 — rfpfiC 

r< PT M « « — M 

r* X w; X r* 

r« ^ per- 




X — PC c M n 

= « -!- 2 r~ c 

t-c'-?-'x's' e 

£ — =. c rj -5- 

£ c ss = r« — 


C5«c«x — M — «=— c«*xr»C — — !? I'-f'-xcic 

OCXXX=.^:^SiS: C:i*i3iC:0 CCO ■S-CSi'C 

•e aC aC iC «= aC aC iC aa aC aC aC aC «C CCS aC aC C« ac 

o f^ r^-^ ae ci — 

• ac O — r* — r* 

: a> c;.ac c c X o 

■? = 






_• £!£ 





^^Z ■ifi:^-?-! 

;^ ::f =* 535 ::__ r - 



" 3 



t~ ic = r- ra ?« s rr — r- ic le rr ■«• c: = ■>• t~ = = ar rr «e = e- = cre« 

• 12,1 



>• I ! 1 ' ; 1 ! ! ! 

c r J 1 ;;;!:;:;; 
X 1 1 !! 1 I 1 1 1 

'-i«i, ¥80,6(10 



1 M 

i i 

! : t ! t : 1 : t 

I 1 1 1 jo I ! 1 io i — ararjc ' r; C3r = — » '• 'ac i rs OB 
li.'llSlll iS^SiCtrS- H sHrroSi 'S,reS 

! t 1 t l*- t 1 1 » — » — =; = i>-»3! = «-» 
t > t t le" 'it .oa 1 ■— l* se — KO 1 ;»- ,ee«i 





=c!M3cr cEisS i: =c: Is rgSS^ — ir £ 2 S f2 p! = ic S S ^ =i 

— r;o o-^— = t~=s =r~==c<crM= =■ ^ = — -w c<» =• = — t~ = = 

=■ TO t^ o = «c = -»• -»• =-3m _— ac— =;<jr~TOrs ac ac — =: = 

N !=—=•=— = IC— -T — CM SCOnO 

-^ IT cr" 

•c — : 

: ^ — r^«C-^ -r-«c 

:r X •c«o 

3C — — 


: 1 I i 1 : t i« ! 1 1 o ;5- : : : 1 : : ■ i i i ■ i i i • i j 
: 1 i i 1 : i Ife t { : § :& i i i ! i ! 1 i i i 1 : 1 i 1 i 1 
: : : 1 : 1 : ts : : 1 - : ; : i i : i :::::: tit:: 

; i i i i ; i i : i I ; ; i i* ; ■ ; : : : i i : : t t 1 : : \\\\\ 



i ! i i i : : i i i i 1 i i is i i i g s^5§ "l s 'iS t : ;i? :§g 

■ I 1 t . 1 > I • I I • 1 1 •» III 0= r = = r,jo.i .ca.scca 

I ; ; t . t ! 1 : : . • : t :^ ; . : ;= '~=rg s = ="= i 1 15 ;^=g 

I ! I t ! ! ! t li 1 t I I 1 '"* ! ! 1 Iso 1 — ;£ = inr- t 1 !» !■«■»- 

■ • 1 ■ > 1 1 1 '• • 1 I 1 I >-» • • ■ • ■ ■ «>r ■«» • I le* 'sa-v 

;;;;:; t::; 1 1 :: :s !! ! i • i t «• ; : i* ;— z: 



































Q = 3 S 
Z -r— I- 

= o 3 

s — 
:- o 


a: M a:Z = !":=)§?■> ^ 

= -?>= ::^=-^^^— icV- 

— M i:"^^ =.=-^| £-= i^j^ S'S^'5 =^ :: =xxx — xxxxx-=C=:xxxP-£C 
0-<< = CiI — ; — — — — xxxxx>5:S ^x r- S 

— ; - a 







The following summary indicates the legal authority for each fund, 
the date it was established, the principal sources of the fund, and its 
principal dispositions. 



Citation: Code Section 







Administrative expense 

Architectural Examiners 

B & P 5500-5604 


Fees and penalty 

Administrative expense 

Athletic Commission 

B & P 18600-18783 


Tax on admission, license 

Administrative expense, 
care of veterans 


Financial 270-275 


Annual assessments, 
examination fees 

Administrative expense 

Barber Examiners 

B & P 6500-6630 



Administrative expense 


B & P 9600-9770 


Fees and licenses 

Administrative expense 

Chiropractic Examiners. 

Deerings Gen. Laws 
Act. 4811 


Fees and licenses 

Administrative expense 

Collection Agency Board 

B & P Div. Ill, Ch. 8 
6850 et seq. 


Fees and licenses 

Administrative expense 

Contractors' License 

B&P 7000-7145 


Fees and licenses and 

Administrative expense 



Cosmetology Contingent 

B & P 7300-7457 


Fees and licenses 

Administrative expense 


B&P 1600-1752 


Fees, licenses, fines and 

Administrative expense 

Dry Cleaners 

B&P 9500-9598.5 


Fees and licenses 

General Fund for support of 

State Fire Marshal, admin- 

istrative expense 

Funeral Directors and 

B&P 7600-7729 


Fees and licenses 

Administrative expense 


Furniture and Bedding 

B&P 19000-19221 



Administrative expense 



Insurance Ch. 145 
Statutes of 1935 


Licenses and examination 
fees, reimbursements, 
penalties, taxes 

Administrative expense 

Itinerant Merchants 

B&P 16300-16451 


Licenses, fees and fines 

Administrative expense 

Landscape Architects 

B&P 5615-5686 


Fees and penalties 

Administrative expense 

Medical Examiners 

2000 et seq. 2550 et 


Fees, taxes, penalties, 

Directories, administrative ex- 


seq. 2600 et seq. 

fines and forfeitures 

pense U. C. Medical Library 

Nurse Examiners 

B&P 2700-2830 


Fees and licenses, 

Administrative expense 


B&P 3000-3152 


Fees and licenses, 
penalties, Yi fines and 

U. C. research, administrative 




Deering Gen. Law 


Fees and taxes, ^4 fines 

Administrative expense 

B&P 2490-2497 

and forfeitures 

Osteopathic Act 5727 

Pharmacy Board 

B&P 4000-4416 


Fees and penalties, H 

Fees and licenses 

Administrative expense 

Physical Therapy 

B&P 2650-2694 


Administrative expense 

Pilot Commissioners 

Harbors & Navigation 


5% of bar pilotage fees 

Administrative expense, 
General Fund 

Private Investigators 

B&P 7500-7583 


Fees and licenses 

Administrative expense 

and Adjusters 

Professional Engineers. . 

B&P 6700-6799, 


Fees and licenses, certifi- 
cates, penalties 

Administrative expense 

Professions and Voca- 

B & P 205 


Consolidation of 26 special 

funds for accounting purposes 

tions Fund 

Real Estate 

B&P 1000-10601, 


Fees and licenses, per- 
mits, sale of directories 

Administrative expense, U. C. 

Institute of Real Estate 

Real Estate Education 

B&P 10450.6, 10451.5 


Real Estate Education and Re- 

and Research Fund 

search in State Education 

Registered Social 

B&P 9000-9044 


Fees and penalties 

Administrative expense 


Savings and Loan In- 

Financial 5350, 5351, 


License, fees and penalties 

Administrative expense 



Shorthand Reporters'... 

B&P 8000-8032 



Administrative expense 

Structural Pest Control. 

B&P 8500-8677 


Fees and licenses, penal- 
Fees on operating revenue. 

Administrative expense 

Transportation Rate 

Pub. Utility Div. 2, 


Reimbursement of General 

Ch. 6 

other fees, sale of docu- 
ments, penalties 

Fund for moneys for adminis- 
trative expense 

Veterinary Examiners 

B&P 4800-4905 


Fees, charges for docu- 

Administrative expense 


ments, penalties, Y2 
fines and forefeitures 


APPENDIX B-Continued 




Citation: Code Section 





FUNDS— Continued 

Vocational Nurse 

B & P 2840-2896 



Administrative expense 


Yacht and Ship Brokers. 

B 4 P 8900-S975 


Fees and licenses 

Administrative expense 


Agriculture Div. 1, Ch. 


Licenses and fees, General 

Administrative expense. Agri- 
cultural Building Fund, seed 

1, Article 1, Sec. 20- 



potato test plot 

Architecture Public 

Employment Contingent 

Education 18191-18205 



Administrative expense 

Unemployment In- 


Interest on contributions 

Refunds, interest on refunds 

surance 1585-1589 

and penalties 

and judgments, administra- 
tive expense 

Fair and Exposition 

B & P Agriculture Div. 


4% of pari-mutucl pool. 

Administrative expense of 

8, Ch. 4-88, 92, 94 

sale of realty by Dis- 
trict Agricultural Assn. 

Horse Racing Board, Dept. 
of Finance for supervision of 
Administrative expense Pacific 

Fish and Game Preser- 

Fish and Game 45 


Licenses, permits, fees. 


taxes, J 2 fines and 
forfeits, and others 

marine fisheries, acquisition 
and construction of preserves 
and hatcheries 


Street & Highway 45 


Transfers from Highway 

General administration. High- 

B <feP5321 

Users Tax Fund. Bal- 
ance on Motor Vehicle 
Fuel and M.V. Fund 
after expenses and other 

way maintenance, acquisition 
and construction 

Highway Properties 
Rental Fund 

Streets & Highways 


Leases of properties 


Motor Vehicle 

Vehicle 776 


Licenses, fees, penalties, 

Motor Vehicle Department 

transfers from Motor 

administrative expenses, 

Vehicle License Fee 

Highway Patrol administra- 

Fund, interest 

tive expenses. Highway Users 
Tax Fund 

Motor Vehicle Fuel 

Revenue A Taxation 


Taxes and penalties 

Administrative expense Divi- 
sion Highway taxes, Bd. of 
Equalization, Tax Coll. and 
Refund Div. and Bureau of 
Highway Accts. and Reports, 
Controllers Office, Transfers 
to Highway Users Tax Fund 

Motor Vehicle License 

Revenue & Taxation 


License, fees of vehicles 

Transfer to M.V. Fund to 



subject to registration 

General Fund to Counties 



and Cities 

Motor Vehicle Transfer 

Revenue & Taxation 


License fees, taxes, penal- 

Administrative Expense, Div. 




Highway Tax, Board of 
Equalization and tax collec- 
tion and refund 

Petroleum and Gas 

Public Resources 3110 


Assess, on Prod. Penal- 
ties, sale of maps and 

Administrative expense, Div. 
Oil and Gas, Dept. of Natural 

Poultry Testing Project. 

Agricultural 47 


Fees, sale of eggs and 
poultry, transfer from 
Fair and Exposition 

Administrative expense, ac- 
quisition of project facilities, 



Redemption Tax 

Revenue & Taxation 


Fees and rents 

Administrative expense. Tax- 
deeded Land Div., Controllers 
Office, apportionment to 

State School 

Constitu. Education 


Rents and royalties school 

Support of schools to school 

Art. IX, Sec. 4 

lands. State oil and 



mineral royalties, inter- 


est from investments, 
transfer from General 

Sixth District Agricul- 

Agricultural 91.5 


Transfer from Fair and 

Sixth District Agri. Assn. sup- 

tural Assn. 

Exposition Fund, rent- 
als, admissions to 
transport exhibits 

port, acquisition and con- 
struction, maintenance etc., 
transfer to General Fund for 

State Beach and Park... 

Public Reeources 6010 


Transfer from State 
Lands Act Fund, 
ramping and parking 

Certain proceeds from 

Acquisition and maintenance of 
Beaches and Parks. Con- 
struction operations. 

State College 

BAP 19620.1 


Acquisition, construction. 

pari-mutuel pool at 

maintenance and supiwrt of 
Dept. of Agri. at Fresno 

horse racing 

SUte College 

APPENDIX B-Continued 




Citation: Code Section 




FUNDS— Continued 

Dairy Products Trust.., 

State Fair 


Bond Sinking Fund of 

Capital Outlay and 

Flood Control Fund of 

Postwar Unemployment 

and Construction 

Revenue Deficiency 

School Bond Retirement 


Alcoholic Beverage 

Bank & Corporation Tax 

Cigarette Tax Fund 

Gift Tax 

Inheritance Tax Fund.. 

Personal Income Tax 

Retail Sales Tax. . _ 

State Lands Act 


Assembly Contingent... 

Highway Right-of-Way 

Highway Users Tax 

Legislative Printing. 
Senate Contingent.. 

Veterans' Dependents 

Agricultural 740-750.2 
Agricultural 76 

Stats. '43 Ch. 611 
Stats. '45 Ch. 1492 

Budget Act 1951 Ch. 

Water 12810 

Stats. '45 Ch. 647 
Stats. '46 Ch. 20 

Gov. 16410-16413 

Stats. '52 Budget Ch. 
3, Sec. 2 Item 114.1 

B & P 23000 et seq. 

Revenue 23001-Taxa- 

tion 26481 
Revenue & Taxation- 

Revenue — 15101 
Taxation— 16652 
Revenue & Taxation 


Revenue & Taxation 

Revenue & Taxation 

Public Resources 6816 

Gov't 9127 

Stats. '52, Ch. 22 (ext. 

sess.) Ch. 1714 Stats. 

Streets & Highways 


Gov't 9128 

Gov't 9126 

Military & Veterans 











Milk fat assessment, 
penalties and interest 

Admissions, fees, rentals, 
parking, wagering, 
transfer from Fair and 
Exposition Fund 

Appropriation from Gen. 
Fund, interest on in- 
vest, matured principal. 
Repayment on loan 

Transfer from Post war 
Employment Fund and 
Gen. Fund, investment 

Approp. to Fund. Income 
from investments. 

Approp. from General 
Fund. Increment from 

Transfer from General 
Fund. Repay of loans 

Transfer from General 
Fund. Income from in- 

License, fees, excise taxes, 

Taxes, penalties and in- 

Taxes on gifts, penalties, 

Personal income tax, pen- 
alties and interest 

State and local sales tax, 
use tax, permit fee 

Oil, gas, mineral royalties. 
Reimbursements for 

Transfer from General 

Transfer from M.V. Fuel 

Fund, M.V. Transport 

Transfer from M.V. Fund, 

Transfer from M.V. 

Fuel Fund. Transfer 

from M.V. Transport 

Tax Fund 
Transfer from General 

Transfer from General 

Transfer from State 

Lands Act Fund 

To Dept. of Agri. for adminis- 
trative costs and Bureau of 
Milk control audits. 

Operation of State Fairs, con- 
struction, improvements, 
equipment, etc. 

Transfer to Gen. Fund, trans- 
fer to Highway Fund, invest- 

Transfer to Architecture Re- 
volv. Fund for Public Works 
to U.C. directly for construc- 

Flood control projects with U. S. 

To local agencies for public 
works administrative expense 
of Act to Controller and 
Finance Dept. Transfer to 
Water Resources 

Transfer to General Fund when 
needed. Loans to General 

Transfer to General Fund 

To local agencies refunds. Trans- 
fer to General Fund 

Refunds. Transfer to General 

Refunds. Transfer to General 

Refunds. Transfer to General 

Refund of inheritance tax pay- 
ments. Transfer to General 

Refunds. Transfer to General 

Refunds. Transfer to General 

Support Div. of State Lands, 
Ariz-Colo River boundary 
determination. Admin. Exp. 
by Div. of State Lands for 
School Land Fund and State 
School Fund. Transfer Vet. 
Dependents Education Fund. 
Transfer to State Beach and 
Park Fund. 

Assembly contingent expense. 

Reversion to General Fund 

Acquisitions of Rights-of-Way 

To Counties to State Highway 

Legislative printing 

Senate contingent expenses 

Educationaljassistance to vet- 
erans dependents to General 
Fund for admin, expenses 


APPENDIX B-Continued 


Citation: Code Section 



Vocational Education. 

Wild Life Restoration. 

Yuba River Debris 




California State Park 
Interest & Sinking 

HiKhway Interest and 
Sinking Funds, 1, 2, 3 

India Basin Sinking 

State BIdg. Sinking Sc 
Int. Fund 

S.F. Seaway Sinking 
Fund No. 2 

S.F. Seaway Sinking 

Fund No. 3 
S.F. Seaway Sinking 

Fund No. 4 

S.F. State Bldg. Sinking 

State Bldg. 4 St. Univ. 

Bldgs. Int. & Sinking 

U of C Bldg. Int. & 

Sinking Fund 




Architecture Revolving 

Ballot Paper Revolving 

Calif. Industries for 

Blind Manufac. Fund 

Correctional Industries 
Revolving Fund 

Old Age & Survivors 
Insurance Revolving 

Opportunity Work 

Onter Rcvolv. Fund 
Printing Fund 

Professional & Voca- 
tional Stand. Fund 

Education 5704 

B & P 19627 
Stats. '35 Ch. 686 

Stats. "27 Ch. 765 

Stat. '09 Ch. 383 
Stats. '15 Ch. 404 
Const. Rev. Art XV I 
<fe Tax Code Sec. 2, 3 

Stats. '09 Ch. 407 

Stats. '13 Ch. 235 
Stats. '09 Ch. 320 

Stats. '13 Ch. 602 

Constitution Stats. '29, 
Art. XVI, Sec. 8, 
Ch. 835 

Stats. '13 Ch. 541 

Stats. "25 Ch. 161 

Nov. '14 Initiative 
Stats. '15 Ch. 16 

Gov't 14030 etscq. 

Elections 3704 
W A L 3332 

Penal 2714 
Gov't 23037 

W k I 3374 
Gov't 13640 

BAP 100^0S 














Transfer from General 

Horse racing license 

Transfer from General 

Transfer from General 

Transfer from General 

Transfer from S.F. Har- 
bor Improvement 
Fund. Investment In- 

Transfer from General 
Fund. Investment in- 

Transfer from S.F. Har- 
bor Improvement 
Fund. Investment in- 

Same as No. 2 

Same as No. 2 

Transfer from General 

Transfer from General 


Transfer from General 

Transfer from approp. to 
several agencies for 
construction and im- 

From counties and cities 
for ballot paper sold. 

Sale of products manu- 
factured by blind 

Sale of services and/or 

Contributions, penalties, 

& Int., reimb. received 

by State related to 

OASI coverage 

Transfer General Fund, 
collection from agencies 
for printing costs 

Transfer from special 
funds — General Fund 

To secondary schools for voca- 
tional education to Div. of 
Instruction, Dept. of Educa- 

Administration expenses Wild 
Life Conservation Board, 
capital outlay for projects 

Construction, maintenance, 
improvement, repair of facili- 
ties for control of Yuba River 

To fiscal agent for interest and 
maturing principal 

Payment of interest and matur- 
ing principal 

Bond principal and int. Trans- 
fer to S.F. Harbor Improve- 
ment Fund unused balance 

Interest redemption 

Bond interest & redemption. 
Return of babnce to S.F. 
Harbor Improvement Fund 

Same as No. 2 

Same as No. 2 

Bond interest and redemption 
Bond interest and redemption 

Bond interest and redemption 

Architecture services. Return of 
balance Revolving Fund for 
wages, advances etc. 

Purchase, storage, transport, 
sale costs of ballot paper 

Operating costs of BUnd Prod- 
ucts Mfg. Transfer of excess 
to General Fund Revolving 
Fund for Conip. Advances, 

Operating expenses, Transfer 
excess to General Fund 

Payments of contrib. required 
under OASI, reimburse ad- 
min, exp. refunds for errors. 

Purchase and rental of e<iuip- 
ment for Blind Cent<'r 

Operating costs, revolving fund 
for com p. advances, etc. 

Admin, and capital expenses of 
BAP Dcpt. Transfer to 
General Fund and contribut- 
ing funds. 

APPENDIX B-Continued 





Citation: Code Section 






FUND— Continued 

Purchasing Revolving 

Gov't 13373 


Legislative appropriation. 

Operating expenses, Revolving 


sales and services to 
other agencies 


Soil Conservation De- 

Public Resources Div. 


Rental, sales, services. 

Grants for soil conservation. 

velopment Fund 

9, Ch. 1680 Stats. '55 

Grants from U.S. for 
soil conservation 

Purchase of equipment and 
operating expenses on it. 
Loans to S.C. Dist. to General 
Fund for division of Soil 
Cons. Dept. of Natural Re- 
sources, matching funds for 
Pleasanton Nursery 

State Payroll Revolving 

Gov't 16390 


Transfer from Agency 

Salaries and wages, payments 


Fund and Appropria- 

of withholding to designated 
payee. Return of excess. 

State Water Pollution 

Stats. '49 Ch. 1551 


Repay of loans, interest 

Loans to municipalities and 

Control Fund 

on loans 

districts. Excess to General 

Surplus Educational 

Education 205 


Transfer to Reserves 
charges billed. Transfer 

Costs and operation expenses 
for acquiring surplus U.S. 


working capital from 
General Fund. Reim- 
burse, from Dept. Ed- 

property for Calif. Educa. 
Inst. Admin. Exp. — Return of 

Surplus Money Invest. 

Gov't 16471 


Transfer of excess from 

Investments, apport. of earn- 


special funds, principal 
and earnings 

ings. Transfer to special funds 

Toll Bridge Authority 

Street &Hiway 30313 


Reimburse from Toll 

Operat. & admin, exp. of Toll 

Revolv. Fund 

bridge acq. & constr. 
or toll rev. funds 

Bridge Authority Act 

Water Commission 

Water 2862 


Charges for determining 

Expenses of determining water 

Revolv. Fund 

water rights. Penalties 
and interest 

rights. Transfer to other funds. 

Water Resources Re- 

Gov't 14034 


Transfer from approp. 

Expenses of surveys, construc- 

volving Fund 

for projects under Div. 
of Water Res. from 
other sources under 

tion, maintenance, invest^ 
ment authorized by contri- 


Calif. State Park Funds. 

Stats. '27 Ch. 765 


Proceeds of sale of bonds 

Acquisition of land for parks 

S. F. Seawall Fund No. 

Stats. '57 Ch. 2238 


Proceeds bond sales. In- 

Harbor improvement bond 

5 & 5th SW Sinking 

vestment income 



Harbor Bond Sinking 


5th S. F. Seawall Fund 

Small Crafts Harbor 

Stats. '58 Ch. 103 


Bond Fd. 

Small Crafts Harbor 

Improv. Fund 

PubUc School Bldg. 

Education Constitu- 


Sale of bonds investment 

Apport. of School Dists. Bond 

Loan Fund 

tion, Div. 3 Ch. 1.6 

income from surplus 

costs. "Transfer to General 

& 1.7, Art. XVI Sec. 

funds. Transfer from 

Fund. Transfer to State 


State Sch. Fund. Re- 
turn to Loans and Ad- 
vances and Unauthor- 
ized expenses 

School Bldg. Aid Fund 

Public Bldg. Constr. 

Gov't. Stats. '55 15845 


Purchase, construction, lease 


Ch. 1686 

of state buildings 

S. F. Harbor Construc- 

Harbors & Navigation 


Proceeds of sale of bonds 

Construction of facilities. Bond 

tion Fund 


costs. Bond interest (early) 

S. F. Seawall Fund No. 4 

Stats. '29 Constitu. Ch. 
835, Art. XVI Sec. 8 


Proceeds of sale of bonds 

Construction of facilities 

State School Bldg. Fund- 

Education 5048.7 


Transfer from State 
School Bldg. Loan 
Fund. Deducts from 
State Sch. Fund ap- 
ports. refund of Sch. 
Dist. Loans 

Apport. to School Dist. Transfer 
to General Fund. Transfer to 
Public School Bldg. Loan 

State School Bldg. Aid 

Education Constitu. 


Proceeds Bond Sales 

Apport. to School Dists. School 


Div. 3, Ch. 19, 20 

Transfer from Gen. 

Buildings Bond Costs. Ex- 

Art. XVI, Sec. 16.5 

Fund investment inc. 
surplus funds. Transfer 
from State School Fund 

penses of State Allocation 
Board and meetings. Transfer 
to General Fund 

School Construction 

Education 18957 


Apport. to school districts 



APPENDIX B-Continued 


Citation: Code Section 




Flood Control Project 
Maintenance Revolv. 

Watennaster Service 


College Auxilliary 
Enterprise Fund 

Compensation Insur- 
ance Fund 

Local Projects Assiss. 

Peace Officers Training 


8. F. Harbor Improv. 

Subsidence Abatement 

UCD Fund (Disability 


Veterans' Farm A Home 
Bldg. Fund of '43 


U. S. Flood Control 
Receipts Fund 

U.S. Forest Reserve 

U.S. Grazing Fees Fund 

Agriculture Bldg. Fund 

Condemnation Deposit 

Medical Care Premium 

Deposit Fund 
Richmond-San Rafael 

Bridge Constr. Fund 

S.F.-Oakland Bay 

Bridge Constr. Fund 
School Land Fund 

Social Welfare Federal 

Southern CrosBng Eng. 

Water 8440 

Water 4350 

Education 20356 

Insurance 11770 

Stats. '59 Ch. 1752 
Penal 13523 

Harbor & Navigation 

Public Resources 3333 

Unemployment Insur- 
ance 2601-3270 

Military & Veterans 

Stats. *47 Ch. 145 

Gov't 29480-29484 

Public Resources 

Agricultural 35-35.6 

Public Resources Stats. 

'59 Ch. 2164 
W A I 4603-4604 

Streets A Highway 

Streets A Highway 

Constitu. Art. IX, 

Sec. 4 

W A I 124.1-124.4 

Streets A Highway 














Assess, of est. costs of 
operation and mainte- 
nance of flood control 

Assess, from owners of 
water rights. Transfer 
from Gen. Fund 

Rents, charges, fees for 
student housing 

Insurance premiums. 
Premium depcsits. Re- 
imbursement from 
other state funds. In- 
vestment income re- 

Harbor tolls, charges 
services, investment 
income, half fines 

Assessments and charges 

Wage-earner contributing 
a-ssess. of voluntary 
plans. Transfer from 
Unemp. Trust Fund, 
investment income 

Interest and principal on 
farm and home pur- 
chase contracts. In- 
vestment income bond 
sales, loans from 
General Fund 

Receipts from U. S. for 

acquisition of flood 

control lands 
Receipts from U.S. for 

forest lands 
Receipts from U.S. for 

grazing lands 
Transfer from Dept. of 

Agri. Fund, rentals 


Proceeds Bond Sales. 
Investment income 

Proceeds Bond Sales. 
Investment income 

Land sales, transfer from 
unclaimed Property 
Fund, Property of 
inter-State ex-rcsidents 

Federal grants 

Bond sales. Investment 

Expenditure for maintenance 
of flood control projects 

Payment of claims. Transfer 
from General Fund 

Operating expenses for student 
housing facilities, construc- 
tion of facilities. 

Worknicns' Compensation 
losses. Administrative costs. 
Premium taxes. Premium 

Loans and grants to local water 

Administrative expenses of 
Commission on Peace Officers. 
Standards A Training grants 
to local gov't 

Operating expenses of harbor 
facilities. Some improvements, 
administrative expenses, pay- 
ments to S. F. for services 

Administrative expenses 

Disability benefits. Administra- 
tive expenses. Land acquisi- 
tion and construction of 

Purchase of farms and homes 
on veterans contracts. Trans- 
fer to General Fund. Invest- 
ment on funds pending use 

Distribution to counties 

Distribution to counties 
Distribution to counties 

Acquisition of property, con- 
struction, operating costs, 
repay contributing funds and 
interest, transfer to General 

Disbursements on court order 

Distribution to counties 

Land costs, construction, oper- 
ating expenses, studies, bond 
interest (con. 6 months) 

Land, construction, operating 
costs, studies, 1st bond interest 

Iwnings from investments. 
Transfer to State, State 
School I'und 

Federal share Old Age Assiss. 
Aid to Blind and Needy Chil- 
dren. Federal share of local 
administra. costs. County 
and State administrative 

Bay crossing studies 


APPENDIX B-Continued 





Citation: Code Section 






Tax-deeded Land Rental 

Revenue & Taxation 


Rental of property, ac- 

Distribution to counties 

Trust Fund 


quisition by State from 
unpaid taxes. 

Unemployment Admin- 

Unemploy. Insurance 


U.S. grants sale of salvage 

Administrative expenses 

istration Fund 



Vocational Rehab. 

Education 5803-5806 


Federal grants 

Expense for Vocational Reha- 

Federal Fund 

bilitation and Training 

Vocational Education 

Education 18706 


Federal Fund 


Calif. lOth Olympic Int. 

Stats. '27 Ch. 313 


Transfer from General 

Payments of interest and ma- 

and Sinking Fund 

Fund, accrued interest 
on bonds sold 

turing principal 

Inmate Welfare Fund- 

Penal 5006 


Proceeds from canteens 
and hobby shops. 
Prisoner deposits 

Education and welfare of in- 

Judges Retirement 

Gov't 75100-75108 


Transfer from General 

Retirement allowances, refunds 


Fund of judges contrib. 
from counties, amount 
deducted from judges' 

Legislators' Retirement 

Gov't 9350-9361.5 


Deductions from Legisla- 

Retirement benefits, death ben- 


tors' compensation ap- 
prop. as needed. In- 
vestment income 

efits, refunds. 

Montague Water Con- 

Civil Procedure 1254 


Litigation deposits 

Court directed disbursements 

servation Dist. Con- 

demnation Fund 

Olympic Bond Fund 

Stats. '27 Ch. 313 
Constitu. Art XVI 
Section 5 


Proceeds bond sales 

1932 Olympic expenses 

Public Health Federal 

Health & Safety 117 


Federal grants for state 

Transfer to General Fund for 


and local health agen- 
cies, hospital construe. 

State Public Health support. 
Payments to local govern- 

Teachers' Permanent 

Education 14251-14683 


Member contribution, 

Transfer to Teachers' Retire- 

Fund, Teachers An- 

employer contribution, 

ment Disbursement Fund. 

nuity Deposit Fund 

State contribution 

Teachers' Retirement 

Education 14251-14683 


Investment income. 

Purchase of securities. Retire- 


transfer from above 
three funds 

ment benefits refunds 

Special Deposit Funds. . 

Gov't 16370-16376 


Collections by state agen- 
cies not otherwise allo- 
cated. Unclaimed 

Withdrawals by Agency De- 
positors. Disburse or reversion 
of unclaimed funds. 

State Employees 

Gov't 20000-21500 


Members and employer 

Retirement benefits, death ben- 

Retirement Fund 

contributions, invest- 
ment income. 

efits, refunds 

State Park Contingent 

Public Resources 5009 


Gifts and bequests local 

Park additions and improve- 


gov't approp. 

ments, refunds 

Torrens Title Assurance 

Land Title Law Sec. 


Real property registration 

Satisfaction of judgments 


105 (Gen. 1914) 
Law 8589 

fees. Investment in- 

Unclaimed Property 

Stats. '51 Ch. 1708 


Monies and property (ex- 

Refunds, title search and ap- 


cept permanently es- 
cheated) paid to State 
under provisions of 
Code of Civil Procedure 

praisal costs, bond costs, 
selected payments. Transfer 
to General Fund, payments 
to claimants. Transfer to 
school land fund. 

Unclaimed Property 

Unemployment Fund..- 

Penal 1520 


Unemploy. Insurance 


Employer contrib. earn- 

Refunds unemployment insur- 


ings on funds, property, 

ance benefits. 






This fund was created in 1956. It utilizes part of the fees derived 
from the reprulation of real estate brokers and agents to finance real 
estate education and research in state educational institutions. 

In the four completed fiscal years since its creation it has received 
$1,534,536 in license fees and earned interest on its surplus. Its expendi- 
tures have been but a small part of its income. 

The following summary gives the details of income and expense 
from July 1, 1956 through June 30, 1960. 
























Ending Surplus . ..... 











The full program of expenditure for the last fiscal year is shown 
below : 








Salaries and Wages.. 


Office Expense 




Compensation Insurance 





Junior Colleges: 

American River Junior College.209.._ 


State Colleges: 
Chico State College 180 










San Fernando Valley State 316 

Long Beach State.. ..182 

Fresno State 208 

Humboldt State ..236 

San Jose State 265 

San Francisco State.. 509 

Los Angeles State. 338 

Tom Emmons 562. 

Total Needs. 






Junior Colleges: 
Pasadena Junior College District 317 


State Colleges: 
San Diego State. 119 






Fresno State. 210 

San Jose State 140 

Los Angeles State 178 

Los Angeles State 179 

Sacramento State 181 

San Jose State 263. 

San Jose State 264.. 

Total Research 





Contributions to Retirement System 


University of California $257,107.57 



The question this experience raises is whether a fund should be al- 
lowed to accumulate rapidly when tlie rate of expenditure suggests 
either that there is not a critical need for this education and research 
or that the agency is remiss in its responsibility to develop the program, 
if it is needed. 

This clearly calls for the more frequent legislative scrutiny that 
abolishing the special funds would provide. 


This fund was created in 1957. It receives money by transfer from 
the State Lands Act Fund (oil, gas and mineral royalties) and from 
camping and parking fees. The fund is to be used for the acquisition 
of beaches and parks, and for construction and maintenance. 

The 1957 legislation anticipated an annual revenue of $12,000,000, 
which has not been sustained in subsequent years, with the result that 
the fund is currently over-appropriated. 

This demonstrates a clear hazard of a special fund. It encourages 
an administrative agency to anticipate a given level of support from 
a special source; results in the planning of a program equal to that 
expectation ; and then leaves the Legislature the difficult choice of either 
repudiating plans or of supplementing the special fund from the 
General Fund. 

When the State Beach and Park Fund was established in 1957, it 
combined three prior funds into this one. The accumulated surplus 
available in the funds on July 1, 1956 was $40,592,307. 

For the fiscal year 1956-57 there was operating revenue of $749,570 
and transfers of $364,241 from the General Fund and $3,911,541 from 
the State Lands Act Fund. In that same year expenditures totalled 
$12,556,404. By the end of the year the surplus had been reduced to 

For the fiscal year 1957-58, operating revenues were $1,215,611, and 
there was a transfer of $8,050,000 from the State Lands Act Fund. 
Expenditures totalled $19,429,127. By the end of that year the surplus 
was reduced to $23,167,347. 

In the fiscal year 1958-59, operating revenues totalled $1,462,827, 
This was the one year in which there was a transfer of $12,000,000 
from the State Lands Act Fund, and there was a further transfer of 
$8,088,459 from the Investment Fund. More than matching this heavy 
income, expenditures totalled $25,046,655, further reducing the year 
end surplus to $19,683,273. 

In the fiscal year 1959-60 (estimated) there were operating revenues 
of $4,944,673, of which $3,304,256 was interest earned on investments. 
Transfer from the State Lands Act Fund provided $5,797,164. Expendi- 
tures of $21,529,003 reduced the surplus to $8,896,017. 

For the current fiscal year, after transfer of $5,046,360 from the 
State Lands Act Fund and $5,349,177 from the General Fund, the ex- 
cess of expenditures over income is expected to reduce the surplus to 


Lf-2732 2-61 7B0 







O'CONNELL, Chairman 


* Resigned, appointed San Diego 
Municipal Judgeship 

MAXINE MOORE, Commiftee Secretary 
MILTON L. McGHEE, Legislative /nfern 


Published by the 


JANUARY, 1961 

Majority Floor Leader 

Speafcer pro Tempore 

Minority Floor Leader 

Chief Clerk 



Letter of Transmittal 5 

Part I — Vagrancy 7 

Recommendations 7 

Legislative Coinisel's Digest 8 

Part II — Laws of Arrest 20 

Recommendations 20 

Introduction 22 

Penal Code Section 833 24 

Penal Code Section 834a 25 

Penal Code Section 835 28 

Penal Code Section 835a 28 

Penal Code Section 836 30 

Penal Code Section 841 33 

Penal Code Section 842 33 

Penal Code Section 847 34 

Penal Code Section 849 38 

Penal Code Section 849a 42 

Penal Code Section 849b 45 

Penal Code Section 850 52 

Penal Code Section 851.5 52 

Penal Code Section 1524 54 

Penal Code Section 1526 56 

Part ITT — Records of Arrest 57 

Findings and Recommendations 57 

New York 59 

Michigan 59 

Ohio 61 

Illinois 61 

New Jersey 62 

Australia 63 

England 64 

California 66 

Part TV— Adult Authority 72 

Findings and Recommendations 72 

Indeterminate Sentencing and the Adult Authority 73 

Punitive Detention 75 

Disparity in Sentencing Practices 76 

Sentencing Practices of Other States 78 

Federal Sentencing Practices 79 




Is the Indeterniiiiato Sentence a Longer Sentence? 81 

Sentencing Policy is a Political Decision 83 

Classifications 83 

Classifications and Treatment Personnel 88 

Department of Corrections (Table) 89 

Parole 90 

Revocation of Parole 94 

Conclusion 95 

Part Y— Services of the Public Defender 96 

Recommendations 96 

Right to Counsel 104 

Cost Per Case of Public Defenders' Officers 1954-1955 (Table) __ 105 


Appendix A — Minimum and Maximum Terms on the Most Fre- 
quent Offenses and Initial Adult Authority Appearance 107 

Appendix B — Federal Sentencing — Institutes and Joint Councils 110 

Appendix C — Citations Relating to Decisions of Paroling 

Authority 114 

Appendix D — Model Penal Code Section 305.21 (Revocation of 

Parole for Violation of Condition: Hearing) 114 

Appendix E — Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges' Re- 
port to the United States Congress in 1942 115 

Appendix F— Felony Complaints Filed After Arrest, 1958-1959__ 115 

Appendix G — Summary Report of the Disposition of Charges 

Against Persons Arrested for Vagrancy in San Francisco — 1957 116 

Appendix II— UPI Release (Mistaken Identity) 117 

Appendix I — Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 118 

Appendix J — Witnesses, Los Angeles Hearing. November 13, 1960 119 

Appendix K — Government Code Sections 119 

Bibliography 121 



January 2, 1961 

Hon. Ralph M. Brown, Speaker of the Assembly, and 
Members of the Assembly 
Assembly Chamber 
Sacramento, California 

Gentlemen : In compliance with the provisions of House Resolution 
No. 326, the Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure herewith sub- 
mits a report on a number of subjects assigned to this committee for 
interim study. 

We have made, in this report, a number of recommendations. We 
believe that the adoption of these recommendations would improve the 
administration of justice in the State of California. 

Respectfully submitted, 

John A. O'Connell, Chairman 
Tom Bane Vernon Kilpatrick 

Phillip Burton Nicholas C. Petris 

Robert W. Crown Jerome R. Waldie 

Louis Francis, with some 





The committee recommends that the vagrancy statute be repealed and 
that it be replaced by the following section defining disorderly conduct : 

An act to repeal Section 647 of, and to add Section 647 to, the 
Penal Code, relating to vagrancy. 

The people of the State of Calif or^iia do enact as follows: 

Section 1. Section 647 of the Penal Code is repealed. 

€4^ 4t Every pe rs on (exec t>fe tt California Indian) without 
visible means ef living wh^ hefi the physica l ahilifey te work, i^tst^ 
w4ie does «e% seek employment, fte*' labor when employment is 
offered him ; 017 

3t Every hegga# who solicits alms as a bus i ness, 0*7 

St Every person who roams about fi^itt place to ^leee without 
a^iy lawful busines s^ ^^ 

47 Every person known to be a pickpocket, th i ef, burglar e^? 
contidcnco operator, eit h er by his ewft confession, ei' by his having 
been convi c t ed ei a«y of such e ffensc sy a«4 having «e visibl e 
e*- lawful mean s ef s^^ pport, whe«- found loitering a^' ound a«y^ 
steambo at land i ng, ra ilroad depot, ba«ki«g 
office, place el amusement, auct iett i=eei«T steii^e^ shop %¥■ 
t horoughfare, ea^j ^¥- e^ttwibus^ e* a«y public gathering e^ as- 

r^/-\-t-v-t \-\ I -rr . i^>» 

§7 Every lewd e* d4ssefe4e person, e^ every person who loiter s 
ift %¥ about public to il ete itt puhlie parks ; ei^ 

^ Every pers o n whe wandc i^ about the streets at late %¥ unusual 
hours ef the night, wi thout iit¥^ visihie ei^ lawful busines s^ Oi^ 

?T Every person who he dge s i« et^r^r barn, shed-^ sh o p ,- outhous e^ 
^essel^ ei= pla c e ethe*' than s-aeh as is kept lei' leelgi^g purposes, 
without the pcrmis siett el the owaier e^ party e ntitled te the pes- 

8t Every p ers on who lives 4«: a«d: about houses el ill- fame; e^^ 

^ Every pe^seii whe aets as a runner e^p capper lei= attorneys 
i» a«dr about p^etiee courts ep eity prisons ^ e*^ 

4O7 Every common p r o s ti tute ; %¥- 

44t Ever.y commo ft drunkard ; Q¥-, 

43t Evcr}^ pe r son whe teitei^ prowls e^ wanders upon the pw- 
¥ate ^ operty el another, i« the ftighttiittey without visible %¥ law- 
l«l: busine ss with the owner ei' occupant thereof ; Oi^ whe while 
loitering, prowlin g ei= wi indering u^e«- the private property el 
anothe i7 i« the ni ghttime, peeks itt the dee^p ei^ window el a»y 
building ep structure lo c ated thewe« a«el whieh is inhabited by 



humiiii beings, without vi i jiblc e^ lawful bufjincoa with tiie owner er 

in rt vagrant, ft«4 w puniahablo hy- a #«€ e# »et cxGocding #¥e 

huiulrod (loUars ($500), w 4w^ iinprif j onmeut i« the county jaii 

Hot oxeoc'diiig w^ month i-i , e¥ hy^ bo Mi Budi 4me tm^ impriaoumcnt. 

Sec. 2. .Section 647 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 

647. Every jjerson who commits any of the following acts shall 

be guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: 

(1) Who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public 
place or any place open to the public or exposed to public view ; 

(2) "Who solicits or who engages in any act of prostitution; 

(3) Who accosts other persons in any public place or in any 
place open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting 
alms as a business ; 

(4) Who loiters in or about any toilet open to the public for 
the purpose of engaging or soliciting any lewd or lascivious or any 
unlawful act ; 

(5) Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to 
place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to iden- 
tify' himself and to account for his presence when requested by any 
peace officer so to <lo, if the surroundings are such as to indicate 
to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identifi- 
cation ; 

(6) Who is found in any public place in such a condition of 
drunkenness that he is unable to exercise care for his own safety, 
or, by reason of his drunkenness, interferes with the free use 
of an.y street, sidewalk or other public way ; 

(7) Who loiters, prowls, or wanders upon the private property 
of another, in the nighttime, without visible or lawful business 
with the owner or occupant thereof ; or who while loitering, prowl- 
ing or wandering upon the private property of another, in the 
nighttime, peeks in the door or window of any inhabited building 
or structure located thereon, without visible or lawful business 
with the owner or occupant thereof; 

(8) Who lodges in any building, structure or place, whether 
public or private, without lawful authority and without the per- 
mission and consent of the owner or occupant thereof, or of the 
person in control thereof. 



Uoponls Sec. 647, adds Sec. 647, Pen. C. 

Hostates law of vagrancy. Deletes provisions defining person known to be pick- 
pocket, thief, burglar, confidence operator, common drunkard, and common prostitute 
as vagrant. Designates proscribed acts as disorderly conduct rather than vagrancy. 

Vagrancy laws originate<l in the days of feudalism in an effort to 
control runaway serfs. Tliey constituted the criminal aspect of the poor 
laws and their aim was to confine the laboring po])ulation to fixed 
areas, working for fi.xed rates of pay. With that beginning, they 
branched out to include begging, drunkenness, prostitution and a host 
of other offenses. 


The theory of present day vagraney statutes was stated in District 
of Columbia v. Hunt, 163 F. 2d 833, 835 : 

' ' A vagrant is a probable criminal ; and the purpose of the 
statute is to prevent crimes which may likely flow from his mode 
of life."i 
The California Supreme Court has said : 

"Vagrancy differs from most other offenses in the fact that it 
is chronic rather than acute ; that it continues after it is complete, 
and thereby subjects the offender to arrest at any time before he 
reforms. ' ' ^ 

Many vagrancy statutes have been declared unconstitutionally vague 
by the courts ^ or modified by judicial interpretation. President Roose- 
velt vetoed a bill which made a vagrant of, "any person leading an 
idle life . . . and not giving a good account of himself. ' ' ^ 

Opposition to vagrancy laws has generally been based upon three 

1. The provisions of the law are archaic and unconstitutionally 

2. Vagrancy laws are sometimes used as a cloak for arresting and 
convicting people for some other more serious crime that cannot 
be proved. 

3. Vagrancy arrests are often "suspicion" arrests and are made 
without probable cause. 

With regard to the first point, there is little controversy in Cali- 
fornia today. It is generally agreed that the language of present Penal 
Code Section G47 is ridiculously outdated. Since the advent of In re 
Newhern it is felt that the "conmion prostitute" will shortly join the 
' ' common drunk ' ' in the limbo of unconstitutionally vague statutes. 

In the second instance, California has its share of persons who plead 
guilty to a charge of vagrancy in return for the dropping of more 
serious charges. This expedient is particularly effective against a de- 
fendant who cannot afford legal counsel. It has been argued that this 
"copping a plea" procedure saves enough time and money for both 
parties to justify its existence. This pragmatic approach has been criti- 
cized as causing disrespect for the administration of justice, and there- 
fore, being more expensive in the long run. 

Thirdly, since Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 24, arrests on "suspicion" 
have been unconstitutional at the local level. This is the aspect of 
vagrancy laws which has most often been criticized — they are usually 
used to make ' ' suspicion ' ' arrests or arrests for conduct which, though 
not criminal, is unpopular.-'^ The existence of such sections as 647.3 
and 647.6 makes possible such cases as People v. Jackson, No. 93, Jan. 

1 Justice William O. Douglas, "Vagrancy and Arrest on Suspicion" (speech given at 

University of New Mexico Law School, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 15, 

IfMiO), p. !i. 
'^People V. Craig, 152 Cal. 42, 47. „^„ ^„ ^,^ „^ ^ . 

«See Hawaii v. Andulia, 48 F. 2d 171; People v. Belcastro, 356 111. 144: St. Louis v. 

Roche, 128 Mo. 541; Ex parte Smith, 135 Mo. 223; Ex parte Hudgms, 86 W^. Va. 

526 ; The "Common Drunk" Section of California's vagrancy statute was mvali- 

dated by In re Newhern 53 A.C. 790, March 1960. 
* S. Rep. No. 821, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2. 
5 See Edelman v. California. 344 U.S. 357. This case involved the use of an ordmance 

to suppress a speech which, in part at least, was critical of the police. 


22, 1935," ill which 375 men were arrested for vagrancy at one time — 
most of them being arrested within a union hall. 

Testimony at a legislative hearing in 1958 " indicated that the va- 
grancy statute is still being used in a discriminatory manner against 
minority groups.^ 

It is fairly obvious that the police often use a vagrancy arrest to 
cover a suspicion arrest. 

An example reported in a newspaper follows : 

"Yoloan Is Cleared on Vagrancy Count 

"Municipal Judge James M. McDonnell dismissed a vagrancy 
charge against "A," who Avas arrested Thursday by police detec- 
tives who thought he might be involved in a burglary '•> they were 

"The arrest occurred when 'A' drove to the home of 'B, ' 
who is charged with receiving stolen propertv, in the company 

" *A' had been cleared of all charges. *C' was booked for pos- 
session of narcotics. 

"The police said four television sets stolen from Veterans TV, 
3269 Folsom Boulevard, were found in the home of 'B'." ^^ 
The California Court of Appeals has said of this practice : 

"For three weeks defendant was observed reading racing sec- 
tion of paper and contacting ten to fifteen people per day. His 
arrest on a vagrancy charge was a subterfuge to obtain evidence of 
bookmaking and was illegal." " 

Of 2,547 persons charged with $1,000 vagrancy in San Francisco in 
1957, 2,214, or 86.9 percent, were dismissed. During the same year, 
921 Caucasian men and 1365 Negro men w-ere charged with "$1,000 
vagrancj'" while the figures for "common vagrancy" were 844 Cau- 
casian and 287 Negro. The "$1,000 vagrancy" booking was explained 
as follow'S: 

Q. "I just wanted to ask you one question. The reason for 
creating the $1,000 vag was to detain a person longer than a person 
picked up under your ordinary vag statute? 

A. "No sir. Basically, it was to create a file for ourselves for 
the future — for future reference as to who the individual was. In 
other words, the matter of discretion has to enter into this and the 
police department has to decide as best it may who the greater sus- 

« See the Recorder, Jan. 24, 1935. 

'A Public Hearing of the Assembly Interim Committee on Judiciary (Subcommittee 
on Constitutional Rights) John A. O'Connell, Chairman, San Francisco, Califor- 
nia, July 28 and 29, 1'.K>S. 

* Ibid., Testimony of : Gregory Stout, Attorney at Law, San Francisco Bar ; Joseph G. 

Kennedy, Deputy Public Defender, City and County of San Francisco ; I.,awrence 
Spei.ser, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California; (Jeorpe 
Vaughn, Jr., Los Angeles Branch, National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People: Richard A. Bancroft, N.A.A.C.P., San Francisco; Ralpli Guznian, 
Southern California Branch, A.C'.L.U., IjOs Angeles; John Adams, .Ir., Legal 
Redress Committee, N.A.A.C.P., San Francisco. Two other scheduled witnesses, 
Mr. Leo Friedman of the San P'rancisco Bar and Mr. Richard Krwin. Pre.-^ident 
of the Criminal Courts Bar Association of Los Angeles County, who did not take 
the stand, announced that their testimony wovild have been substantially the 
same as that given by Gregory Stout and l.,awrence Speiser. 

• Emphasis ours. 

>«News item, the Sacramento Bee, Thursday, Sept. 8, 1960, p. A17. 
" People V. Wilson, 145 Cal. App. 2d 1. 


peets are, who the greater criminals are and if we feel one party 
should be mniiged and fingerprinted it's because we feel that maybe 
he will commit a more heinous crime in the future. 

Q. ". . . Then the only difference would be the amount of bail? 

A. "At the present time, yes, I would say so. I would also say 
that possibly some of the officers feel that by makino- it a thousand 
dollars that it will provide, possibly, an opportunity to question 
the particular individual where if it w^ere smaller— this is in the 
minds of some officers possibly, but it is not a policy of the de- 
partment. ' ' ^- 

Of the 1,355 persons charged with "common vagrancy," 696, or 
slightly more than one-half, were dismissed. 

The committee members were informed, at the February, 1960 hear- 
ing that the San Francisco police no longer use the "$1,000 vagrancy" 
bookino' at all and that the total vaarancv arrests dropped to 731 in 

The following testimony was given regarding present practices: 
A. "... Even this sharp decline on vagrancy did not affect 
the picture, as far as our effectiveness is concerned. As I indicated, 
we still brought about a considerable decline or decrease in our 
crime picture. The decrease in the vagrancy arrests hasn't hurt 
us at all.^^ 

Q. "Chief, was there any corresponding increase in arrests for 
other crimes, so it would tend to offset the reduction in the arrests 
for vagrancy? 

A. "I would say yes, there was. The exact figures, I haven't 

Apparently, since the 1958 Subcommittee hearing, the San Fran- 
cisco Police Department has taken a greater interest in training their 
officers as to the limits of a lawful vagrancy arrest : 

"... The import of the vagrancy laws, brought out by the case 
and what not, tried to train the officer what it means . . . They're 
a little more hesitant, a little more careful,, a little more cautious 
and more slick about that type of arrest. "^^ 

Changes in police practices have been voluntary however, since the 
vagrancy statute has not as yet been changed. There was an attempt to 
modify "the vagrancy laws in the 1959 Legislature. A bill was passed 
with amendments by the Legislature, but vetoed by Governor Brown. 
The Governor, in a letter to Ernest Besig, Executive Director, American 
Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, August 26, 1959, gave 
the following reasons for his objection to the bill : 

"Dear Ernie: 

' ' I have your letter inquiring as to the reasons for my vetoing of 
A.B. 2712 (vagrancy), A.B. 2607 (use of warrants of arrest) and 
A.B. 276 (3-hour bookings). 

^ Testimony of Inspector Alfred Arnaud, Chiefs Office, San Francisco Police Depart- 
ment, at San Francisco hearing. 

" Testimony of Thomas Joseph Cahill, Chief, San Francisco Police Department, at 
Sacramento hearing. 

" Testimony of Inspector Alfred Arnaud, op. cit. 

IS Ibid. 


"As I stated in tlie release announcing my decision not to ap- 
prove A.B. 2712, I am sym]iatlietic to the overall purpose of the 
bill ■vvliifh was to punish individuals only for wrongful actions 
and not simply because of their status. But I found that in accom- 
plishing this laudable objective the proposed legislation unfor- 
tunately removed from police control certain dangerous conduct, 
regulation of which is necessary in the public interest. 

''The bill proposed to repeal subdivisions 3 and 6 of the present 
law witiiout substituting an}- kind of control over those whose 
conduct afforded occasion for legitimate suspicion. I am aware 
that police action in this regard has led to criticism, and I agree 
that the present law should be revised. But I do not think that 
the possibility of abuse justifies completely denying any controls 
at all. Legislation in this area would be effective if it gave some 
definition of authority and obligation to which the private citizen 
and the policeman could reasonable and fairly conform. A.B. 2712 
also eliminated control of the nighttime prowler under subdivision 
12, except for the peeping Tom. The menace of the nighttime 
prowler is far more serious than this, and sanctions such as now 
exist are necessary to protect the public. The bill also made it an 
offense to loiter in public parks. Such a prohibition is both illogi- 
cal and dangerous. I am certain that you and ACLU must agree 
that such a provision is unthinkable. 

"Finally, there was serious doubt that the bill was ever legally 
passed by the Assembly. The official Journal shows that it received 
only 40 votes instead of the 41 required by the Constitution, and 
it came to my desk bearing such a notation by the Speaker. I am 
advised by respectable legal opinion that under such circumstances 
the measure could not become law. 

"Because of these objections I was unable to approve the bill 
in its present form. I Avould certainly look favorably upon legisla- 
tion in the future which conformed to the above reasoning and 
assure you again of my sympathy with the general objectives 
which the Legislature had in mind. 

"... I trust this further explanation will satisfy your inquiry. 

' ' Sincerely 

" 'Pat' 

"Edmund G. Brown 

"1\S. — Art Sherry, tiie author of A.B. 2712, asked me to veto it 
because of emasculatory amendments." 

In the October, I'JGO, issue of the California Law Review, Professor 
Sherry sets out a modified version of his original bill, along with his 
rationale for each section. 

Since tlic committee finds itself in agreement with so man}' of Pro- 
fessor Sherry's proposals, we shall set out his draft of a new Section 
647, section by section, including his comments thereon. Following 
each section, we shall note any points on which the committee may 
differ with Professor Sherry's bill. 


"The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 
"Section 1. Section 647 of the Penal Code is repealed. 
"Sec. 2, Section 647 of the Penal Code is enacted to read: 
"647. Disorderly conduct. Every person who commits any of 
the following acts shall he guilty of disorderly conduct S'^ 

"1. Who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any puhlic 
place or any place (open to the puhlic or) exposed to public view; 
"This provision is drafted to cover the subject matter of exist- 
ing subsection 5 -which provides that a "lewd and dissolute person" 
is a vagrant. It departs from the concept of status and deals 
directly with socially harmful lewd or dissolute conduct, that is, 
such conduct when it occurs in public view. It is based in part 
upon a similar approach in the Michigan vagrancy statute.*^^ 

The committee is in full agreement with this section as proposed. 

"2. ^yho solicits or who engages in any act of prostitution; 

"This is a simple description of the conduct to be proscribed. 
It was drafted before the decision in the Newhern case which has, 
by necessary implication, deleted the term 'common prostitutes' 
from the list of those who are vagrants. The qualification 'for 
pecuniary profit' added by the Assembly bill seems unnecessary."^® 
(Footnote 70: By definition, a prostitute is one who engages in 
sexual intercourse for hire. People v. Head, 146 Cal. App. 2d 744, 
304 P. 2d 761 (1956).)" 

The committee is in full agreement with this section as proposed. 

"3. Who accosts other persons in any public place (or in any 
place open to the public) for the purpose of begging or soliciting 
alms (as a business) ; 

"This section is drafted to meet the problem of controlling beg- 
ging by describing specific acts. It is aimed at the conduct of the 
individual who goes about the streets accosting others for hand- 
outs. It is framed in this manner in order to exclude from one 
ambit of the law the blind or crippled person who merely sits or 
stands by the wayside, the Salvation Army worker who solicits 
funds for charity on the streets at Christmas time and others whose 
charitable appeals may well be left to local control. The bracketed 
words, which w^ere added in Assembly Bill 2712, improve the 
original draft." 

^ It is not necessary, of course, to use the label "disorderly conduct." Assembly 
Bill No. 2712 simply provided that every person who committed certain 
specified acts was guilty of a misdemeanor. There is an advantage, however, 
in furnishing a label beforehand ; otherwise California's many police agen- 
cies (or the press) will invent a variety of labels as a matter of record- 
keeping and statistical convenience. The resulting lack of uniformity ob- 
viously would be undesirable. 
*'' See note 29, supra; the following have been held to come within the descrip- 
tion of "lewd or dissolute" as the words are used in Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 
647(5) ; a narcotic addict, People v. Jaurequi, 142 Cal. App. 2d 555, 298 P. 
2d 896 (1956) ; a sodomist, People v. Bahi, 103 Cal. App. 2d 326, 229 P. 2d 
843 (1951) ; a window peeper. People v. Arlington, 103 Cal. App. 2d 911, 
229 P. 2d 495 (1951) ; and a nude dancer. People v. Scott, 113 Cal. App. 
778, 296 Pac. 601 (1931) ; see Note 39, Calif. L. Rev. 579 (1951). Except 
for the addition of the words in parentheses, the first section of the Assembly 
bill is identical." 


The committee is in full agreement with this section as proposed. 

"4. Who loiters in or about any toilet open to the public for 
the purpose of engaging in or soliciting any lewd or lascivious (or 
any unlawful) act; 

"The oxistinjif law classes as a vajTrrant every person who 'loiters 
in or about public toilets in public parks.' Assembly Bill 2712 
left these words unchanged except that it substituted 'or' for 'in,' 
thus making it an offense to loiter in a public park. This is hardly 
an improvement. The original proposal, as it appears above, ex- 
cluding the words in brackets, requires that the loitering wliich is 
proscribed be that which is accompanied by lewd intent. This is 
precisely Avhat the present law is aimed towards, hence there is 
little or no reason for not being specific. '^^ (Footnote 71: Fountain 
V. State Board of Education, 157 Cal. App. 2d 463, 320 P. 2d 890 
(1958).) It seems undesirable too to limit the application of the 
statute to what may be construed to be only publicly maintained 
facilities as is the case with the existing law. The words in brackets 
are suggested as an alternative in the event it may appear to be 
desirable to widen the scope of the draft so that it would include, 
for example, those situations in which automobile service station 
toilet facilities are used for the sale or administration of nar- 
cotics. ' ' 

The language in A.B. 2712 relating to loitering in a public park w-as 
added to the bill after it left the Assembly. The committee has no 
objection to the addition of the words in parentheses in view of the 
requirement of intent. We support this section as proposed. 

"5. Who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to 
place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to 
identify himself and to account for his presence when requested 
by any peace officer so to do; 

"This provision was not included in Assembly Bill 2712. It is 
a difficult subject to treat Avith any degree of satisfaction but one 
which recjuires serious and careful consideration because of the 
practical necessities of police responsibility for the preservation 
of law and order. The draft is designed to replace subdivisions 3 
and 6 of the present code section by providing a more specific de- 
scription of the kind of suspicious person that the police are bound 
to deal with. At the heart of the problem here is the great desira- 
bility of stating the terms of police authority in such a way as to 
minimize abuse without impairing the ability to take necessary 
action.'- (Footnote 72: The provision in the draft requiring the 
suspicious loiterer to identify himself and to explain tlie reason 
for his actions upon the request of a peace officer is consistent Avith 
the authority which such officers have long possessed in Cali- 
fornia. A dictum in the earliest case in which the private per- 
son.s resjionsibility to respond to reasonable police inquiry is dis- 
cussed is ill point with respect to the suspicious loiterer: 'A police 
officer has a right to make inquiry in a proper manner of anyone 
upon the public streets at a late hour as to his identity and the 
occasion of liis presence, if the surroundings are such as to indicate 


to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identifica- 
tion." Gisske v. Sanders, 9 Cal. App. 18,"l6, 98 Pac. 43, 45 (1908). 
Years later, the California Supreme Court adopted this conclusion 
in People v. Simon, 45 Cal. 2d 645, 290 P. 2d 531 (1955). For 
an illustrative suspicious person case and a useful summary of 
the law, see People v. West, 144 Cal. App. 2d 214, 300 P. 2d' 729 
(1956).) To write any law in complete accord with this standard 
is probably impossible but this is not a valid argument for simply 
denying the police power to take any action with respect to the 
'suspicious person.' The draft attempts to spell out the limits of 
the policeman's authority and to declare some obligation on the 
part of the citizen to account for himself when his loitering arouses 
suspicion. "^^ (Footnote 73: 'The bill proposed to repeal subdivi- 
sions 3 and 6 of the present law without substituting any kind of 
control over those whose conduct afforded occasion for legitimate 
suspicion. I am aware that police action in this regard has led 
to criticism, and I agree that the present law should be revised. 
But I do not think that the possibility of abuse justifies completely 
denying any controls at all. Legislation in this area would be 
effective if it gave some definition of authority and obligation to 
which the private citizen and the policemen could reasonably and 
fairly conform.' Letter from Governor Edmund G. Brown to 
Ernest Besig, Esq., Director of the American Civil Liberties 
Union of Northern California, August 26, 1959.) " 
This proposed section is a substitute for present Sections 3 and 6 
which have occasioned the greatest abuse of the vagrancy laws in the 
past. They make possible, in effect, a type of "suspicion" arrest which 
is in conflict with the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. This type 
of legislation invites unequal protection of the laws in that it rarely ^^ 
affects anyone unless he is poor, nonconformist, or a member of some 
minority group. 

The relationship between this section and the exclusionary rule was 
pointed out at the San Francisco hearing : 

"Now along with this vagrancy law is the problem of the right 
to question. It, in effect, shifts the burden of proof to the indi- 
vidual to satisfy the officer who, as Inspector Arnaud suggested, 
has discretion in the matter. It is up to the individual to explain 
satisfactorily to the officer why he is on the street or why he is at 
a certain place. 

"It has been suggested that this is a relatively minor price to pay 
for crime prevention. First of all, I am not so sure that it results 

i« There have been a few exceptions, such as that of the two doctors who were ar- 
rested in San Francisco this summer on a vagrancy charge. The arresting officer's 
report stated : 

"While on patrol this date at the above time, 1.30 a.m., I was patrolling 
the Twin Peaks roadway, looking for po.ssible peeping toms, for which there 
have been numerous complaints filed at Park Station. While so doing I ob- 
served the below arrested parties walking along the roadway on top of Twin 
Peaks. On stopping to question the parties, number one stated that they were 
just getting some air. When I told them that it was a very unusual hour to be 
out walking, they stated that they 'didn't think that we are doing nnvthing 
wrong,' and that they didn't think I should be bothering them. When I told 
them that they could be arrested for being up there at this time of night, thev . 
stated that they thought that was kind of silly, and that I would have a hard 
time making such a charge stick. Both parties were taken to Park Stafon 
and booked on the below charges." 


in crime prevention. Secondly, I do not think it is such a small 
price to pay. I do not feel that I -would want to explain to a law 
enforcement officer why I am on the street at the evening hours 
and I believe these arrests are made, not at 4.30 in the morninp: as 
the nsual ease is sufygrested bnt in the day and in the early evening 
hours. An officer who seeks to arrest a person Avhen he has no prob- 
able cause to suspect a person has committed a crime is in no 
different position from anj^body else and shoidd be treated no 

"If the officer has the power to question an individual at his own 
discretion at the price of taking liini in on a vag charge he can do 
it to you, or me, or anyone else. Now tlie importance of this right 
to question combined witli the vagrancy laws is seen by the turn 
that lias been taken with the search and seizure cases with the 
State Supreme Court. If you have a valid arrest, and if you have 
a valid arrest because there is no reasonable explanation as to why 
a person is out on the street under the vagrancy laws, then a 
search incident to the arrest is legal and the search may be utilized 
to find some material on tlie individual with which he is later 
charged. So we can start out with a valid arrest, a valid vagrancy 
arrest that tliere is no reasonable explanation and go on from 
there to the search and seizure. The question is whether the police 
should have the power to search individuals at their own discre- 
tion. I do not think they should have the power. I think they 
assume they have the power at the present time." ''^ 

The traditional common law with reference to questioning, and the 
English practice, is described by Justice Devlin of the High Court of 
England : 

"The police have no power whatever to detain anyone on sus- 
picion or for the purpose of questioning him. They cannot even 
compel anyone Avhom they do not arrest to come to the police sta- 
tion. It is true that in the course of an inquiry they frequently 
ask people to come to the police station and make a statement there 
and that people almost invariably comply. But many people gen- 
uinely prefer to go to the station rather than have the police com- 
ing to their homes. Very often there is no place in the home where 
an interview could conveniently be conducted; and anyway police- 
men who call create talk among the neighbors. But it is up to the 
police to make sure that a man comes to the station voluntarily ; if 
they do not, they may land themselves in serious complications; 
they may find not only that they are defendants to a claim for 
false imprisonment but also that the answers they have obtained 
from the accused are held to be inadmissible because the accused, 
being under arrest, is in custody within the meaning of, and there- 
fore protected by, the Judges' Rules." ^^ 

" Testimony of Lawrence Speiser, Attorney, A.C.L.U. of Northern California, at San 

Francisco hearing. 
"Patrick Devlin, The Criminal Prosecution in England (New Haven: Yale Uni%'erslty 

Press, 1958), pp. 82-83. 


The type of liberty in question M^as defined by the Right Honorable 
Lord Justice Denning in his series of Hamlyn Lectures at London 
University : 

"Let me first define my terms. By personal freedom I mean the 
freedom of every law-abiding citizen to think what he will, to say 
what he will, and to go where he will on his lawful occasions with- 
out let or hindrance from any other persons. Despite all the great 
changes that have come about in the other freedoms, this freedom 
has in our country remained intact. ' ' ^^ 

In this country Justice Douglas decried the abuse of the vagrancy 
concept in a speech at the Universitv of New Mexico Law School in 
March 1960 : 

"I think we can say with confidence that in this particular 
area of law the traditional safeguards available to accused persons 
tend to mean practically nothing. 

"... The view persists in this country that these wanderers 
are 'a potential menace to the community' and must be punished. 
H. R. Rep. No. 1248, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2. What Perkins, 
The Vagrancy Concept, 9 Hastings L. J. 237. 252-253, wrote is 
typical of these pronouncements. 'In metropolitan centers . . . 
the vagrancy law is one of the most effective weapons in the arsenal 
of law enforcement, and if the officer's use of this weapon should 
be seriously impaired the security of the citizen would be griev- 
ously weakened.' That has a familiar ring. The same justification 
is often given for holding people incommunicado and for allowing 
coerced confessions to be used in evidence. But do not these 
vagrancy laws — like the use of force to get a confession — merely 
make for lazy police and lax police practices? 

"The charge against them is more serious than that. A man 
who is idle and has no visible means of support is placed in a 
criminal category, because he is deemed likely to commit a crime 
in order to gain a livelihood. Foote and others have challenged 
that premise (104 Pa. L. Rev. 625-627) ; and there seems, indeed, 
little evidence to support it. Moreover, when the law proceeds on 
that basis, suspicion is the foundation of the conviction; the pre- 
sumption of innocence is thrown out of the window. England 
got rid of that concept. Criminal intent of some character, not 
mere idleness and destitution, must be present. ^° (Footnote 10 : 
See Danks, Suspected Persons and Reputed Thieves, Crim. L. 
Rev. (1958) p. 115.)" 

The Conference of State Bar Delegates, in 1959, approved a resolu- 
tion favoring the repeal of subsections 3 and 6 of Section 647. 

The committee finds that Section 5, as proposed by Professor Sherry, 
would lend color of law to arrests based upon suspicion. It would invite 
a double standard of justice and leave too much discretion in the hands 
of the arresting officer. When probable cause exists, the officer may 
arrest without benefit of this section. Where probable cause does not 
exist, it would be better that no arrest be made. 

1* Sir Alfred Denning, "Personal Freedom," Freedom Under the Law (London: Stevens 
& Sons Limited, 1949), p. 5. 


Although Professor Sherry sets out a dictum from Gisske v. Sanders 
as a justification for the adoption of his proposed Section 5, we find 
that his argument rests only upon the first half of that dictum. It not 
only states that an officer has the right to make inquiry in a proper 
manner of anyone upon the public streets at a late hour as to his 
identity and the occasion of his jiresence, but goes on to ,say " ... if 
tlie surroundings are such as to indicate to a reasonable man tliat the 
public safety demands such identification." This phrase accords with 
many other cases holding that probable cause can consist of the refusal 
to answer questions coupled with other circumstances. There is no 
implication that sucli refusal alone would justify arrest. For example : 

"Inquiries Reveal Probable Cause 

''The refusal to answer questions or inconsistent or evasive 
answers may, in itself, be one circunistanee, among others, which 
would justify tlie police officer in making an arrest for vagrancy. 

"People V. West, 144 C"al. App -M 214 (defendant carrying arm- 
load of clothes, gives inconsistent explanation of possession, in area 
where burglaries recently committed ) , " ^^ 

An inconsistent answer, of itself, has been held insufficient probable 
cause for an arrest for vagrancy. 

"Prior to the arrest the officer had been told by an anonymous 
informant that the defendant was a known thief and dealt in 
narcotics and the officer liad seen the defendant sitting in an 
automobile talking to a known addict about a month prior to the 
arrest. On the night of the arrest at about 2 a.m., the officer 
observed defendant in the doorway of a liquor store talking to 
another person; every few moments the defendant left the door- 
way, looked down the street and returned to the doorway. The 
officer asked the defendant what he was doing and defendant 
ansAvered tliat he ^vas waitijig for a friend. After placing him 
under arrest for vagrancy, the officer told the defendant to take 
his hand out of his pocket and when defendant refused to do so, 
the officer grabbed his hand and found a marijuana cigarette. 
Held : There was insufficient probable cause to arrest for vagrancy, 
since the defendant might have been looking for a bus, a taxi, 
or a person. People v. Harris, 146 Cal. App. 2d 142."-^ 

The committee feels that any re(iuirement that a citi/en answer ques- 
tions put to him by a police officer must be made with care. 

However, in an effort to combat crime more elt'ectively, we recom- 
mend that Professor Sherry's proposed Section No. 5 be adopted with 
an amendment. In order to make it fit more nearly the dictum from 
Gisske v. Sanders, upon which it is based, we recommend that the fol- 
lowing phrase from that opinion be added : 

". . . if the surroundings are such as to indicate to a reasonable 
man that the jmblic safety demands such identification. 

"6. Who is found in any public place in such a condition of 
drunkenness (intoxication) that he is unable to exercise care for 

=" California. Department of Justice. Probable Cause to Arrest and Admissibility of 

Evidence, by Bonnie Lee Martin, Rev. Ed. (Sacramento: I'JGO), p. 2'J. 
" Ibid.,v. 31. 


his own safety, or, l)y reason of his drunkenness (intoxication) 
interferes with (or obstructs or prevents) the free use of any 
street, sidewalk or other puMic way; 

"This provision was also omitted from Assembly Bill 2712. It 
would fill the gap left by the decision in Newhern by providing a 
uniform, definite standard for police control of the public drunk 
who is a nuisance to others and a danger to himself. The words in 
brackets are suggested as alternatives." 

The committee recommends that this section be adopted as proposed, 
eliminating the alternative words in brackets. 

"7. Who loiters, prowls or wanders upon the private property 
of another, in the nighttime, ivifhout visible or lawful biisiness 
with the owner or occupant thereof ; or who while loitering, prowl- 
ing or wandering upon the private property of another, in the 
nighttime, peeks in the door or window of any inhabited building 
or structure located thereon, without visible or lawful business 
with the owner or occupant thereof ; 

"This is substantially the same as subdivision 12 of the code 
section as it now reads. Only the superfluous specification of habita- 
tion 'by human beings' is dropped. In Assembly Bill 2712 the 
section was greatly modified by restricting its application to the 
peeping tom alone. Both types of conduct denounced by the law, 
however, carry the same threat to the public peace, thus making 
any such limitation appear to be nothing more than arbitrary." 

The committee recommends the adoption of this section as proposed. 

"8. Who lodges in any building, structure or place, ivhether 
public or private (other than one which is maintained for lodg- 
ing purposes), without the permission of the owner or person en- 
titled to the possession or in control thereof. 

"This is the last section or category that appeared in the draft. 
It is a simplification of the wording of subdivision 7 of the present 
statute and an extension of its reach to cover public as well as 
private property. Assembly Bill 2712 carries an almost identical 
provision which is better than the draft because of its omission of 
the unnecessary lodging house exception. ' ' 

The committee recommends the adoption of this section as proposed 
inA.B. 2712: 

"Lodges in any building, structure or place, whether public or 
private, without lawful authority and without the permission and 
consent of the owner or occupant thereof, or of the person in con- 
trol thereof ; ' ' 

The committee believes that the adoption of a bill as outlined in our 
recommendations will eliminate crimes of status and substitute work- 
able definitions of criminal conduct. We believe that a policy of making 
arrests only upon probable cause, in accordance with constitutional 
mandates, will create a better working relationship between the public 
and the officers who enforce its laws. 



Section 833 Penal Code 

The committee recommends that tlio following elanse be added to 
Section 833: 

"... but only if the arrestino: officer could lawfully have arrested 
such person at the time the search was commenced." 

Section 834a Penal Code 

The committee proposes the foUowinjii: amendment to Section 834a 

Penal Code : 

However, for the purpose of Section 148 of the Penal Code 
neither an unlawful arrest nor an attempt to make an unlawful 
arrest shall constitute a "duty." No peace officer shall assert any 
cause of action, in any legal proceeding, or recover any damages 
in any proceeding, against the person arrested or attempted to be 
arrested if such arrest or attempted arrest was unlawful, unless 
(1) the peace officer received injuries and such person used greater 
force than reasonably necessary to resist the arrest; (2) such per- 
son used a dangerous weapon; or (3) such person actually com- 
mitted the offense for which the arrest Avas made or attempted. 

Section 835 Penal Code 

The committee does not recommend any legislative change in the 
section at the present time but suggests that the TiCgislature review 
the effect its adoption has had upon the amount of force used in making 
arrests without warrants. 

Section 835a Penal Code 

The connnittee makes no recommendation. 

Section 836 Penal Code 

The committee recommends that: 

Section 836 be amended to make clear that it codifies the Cover- 
stone rule which was a test applying to the civil liability of peace 

Section 841 Penal Code 

The committee recommends that: 

Peace officers follow a policy of informing the arrested person 
of the charge against liim when there is any diance that he might 
not alreadj' know it, and in all cases in which the arrested person 
asks the cause of his arrest. Such a policy would be helpful in 
maintaining a co-operative attitude on the part of the public. 



Section 842 Penal Code 

The committee recommends that the followiiif? phrase be added to 
the end of the section : 

"and in any event, within two honrs of his arrest." 

Section 847 Penal Code 

The committee recommends that : 

Section 847 be amended to make it clear that it docs not purport 
to hold that a lawful arrest can validate a subsequent false im- 

The committee also recommends that : 

The civil liability of peace officers be studied at length during 
the next interim in an effort to draft legislation which will balance, 
as perfectly as possible, a vigorous law enforcement policy with 
freedom from arbitrary police action. 

Section 849 Penal Code 

The committee recommends the addition of the following section to 
the Penal Code : 

"In any case in which a person, after arrest with or without a 
warrant, is not brought before a magistrate within the time re- 
quired by law, the person who brings such person before a magis- 
trate, must file with the magistrate a verified statement explaining 
why he was not brought before the magistrate within the time 
required by law and stating the time and place of the arrest, force, 
if any, used in effecting the arrest, places to which the arrested 
person was taken and the purpose of taking him to such places." 

Section 849a Penal Code 

The committee recommends that the change proposed in A.B. 2039, 
and approved by the State Bar, be put into effect by the Legislature 
during the 1961 General Session. The pertinent section of that bill, 
introduced by Assemblyman John A. O'Connell, has been summarized 
by the Legislative Counsel as follows: 

' ' Modifies rules governing arrest on a felony warrant in a county 
other than the county from which the warrant issued, to provide, 
generally, that the person arrested shall be taken before a magis- 
trate in the county of arrest unless he expressly waives the right, 
rather than that he be taken before a magistrate of the county 
from which the warrant issued, unless he requires otherwise. How- 
ever, in cases in which amount of bail is not endorsed on warrant, 
and arrested person is taken before magistrate of county of arrest, 
the magistrate shall fix bail as otherwise provided by law, or may 
refuse to fix bail if refusal is authorized by law. 

"Requires that a person arrested without a warrant must be 
taken before a magistrate in the county in which the arrest is 
made, rather than the county in which the offense is triable. Pro- 
vides, however, that defendant may waive right to be taken before 
magistrate of county of arrest, Details procedure to be followed 


when person so arrested is taken before magistrate of county of 
arrest. ' ' 

Section 849b Penal Code 

The eoiuniitlee recommends : 

That the Legislature approve a budget item augmenting the 
collection of statistics by the Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 

That a transcript showing- tlie disposition of every person prose- 
cuted in a municipal or justice court be sent to the Bureau of 
Criminal Identification and Investigation. 

Sect/on 850 Penal Code 

The committee knows of no objection to tliis section as amended 
in 1957. 

Section 851.5 Penal Code 

The committee recommends that : 

The section be amended to delete the Avords, "at his own ex- 
pense." It Avould seem reasonable to allow the police to charge such 
a toll against any money in possession of the per.son at the time 
of arrest, but no person should be prevented from contacting an 
attorney, relative, or friend for lack of funds. 

Section 1524 Penal Code 

The committee makes no recommendation. 

Section 1526 Penal Code 

The committee makes no recommendation. 


Specific issues regarding the legality of an arrest or search were 
seldom raised in California before 1955. Before that date the question 
was not so important because evidence gained by an unlawful arrest 
and/or search was admissible in California courts. In 1955, the Cali- 
fornia Supreme Court, in People v. Cahan, adopted the federal rule 
that evidence unlawfully obtained cannot be used against a defendant 
in a criminal proceeding. 

In 1957 the law enforcement agencies came before the Legislature 
with a bill (A.B. 1857) which would have changed the laws of arrest 
to such an extent that virtually any arrest would have been lawful — 
thus eft'ectively sidestepping the Cahan rule. The Legislature rejected 
some of the more drastic innovations but accepted enough of the pro- 
posed changes to effect a number of changes in the laws of arrest. 

During the 1959 general session of the Legislature, an attempt was 
made by way of Senate Bill Xo. 728 to except narcotics cases from the 
Cahan rule. This effort failed. In addition to oi)position based upon 
the central issue, many legislators believed that such a change would 
be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional. Although the federal 
exclusionary rule was not originally set out as a requirement of the 
United States Constitution, the opinion in Irvine v. California made it 


clear that a majority of the justices were dissatisfied with that interpre- 
tation. Moreover, in Wolf v. Colorado, the United States Supreme 
Court declared that the Federal Constitution, by virtue of the Four- 
teenth Amendment, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by 
state officers. 

On June 27, 1960, the United States Supreme Court decided two 
further cases ^ which strengthen the argument that a legislative attempt 
to allow the introduction of unconstitutionally obtained evidence would 
be invalid. 

It should be emphasized, in discussing this subject, that the exclusion- 
ary rule does not affect the introduction of evidence which has been 
lawfully obtained. The Fourth Amendment allows reasonable arrests, 
searches, and seizures. Arguments pro and con with regard to the 
merits of the exclusionary rule have been made by many able com- 
mentators.^ In view of the decisions in Elkms and Bios, we believe that 
the controversy has been resolved in favor of the exclusionary rule and 
further debate on that question would be futile. 

The Legislature's responsibility now is to maintain a continuing 
appraisal of our laws of arrest, search, and seizure with the intent of 
balancing, insofar as possible, the demands of a vigorous law enforce- 
ment policy with Fourth Amendment guarantees. This is not an easy 
task. We cannot expect to achieve perfect justice ; we can aspire to it. 

Five years have passed since the adoption of the Cahan rule. The 
new arrest laws have been in effect more than three years. The courts 
have ruled on many eases involving the issue of lawful arrest. They 
have developed certain guidelines by which law enforcement officers 
can determine whether the facts of a ease constitute reasonable, or 
probable cause for arrest.^ 

This committee has followed judicial developments in this area with 
great interest. In addition, we have been concerned with several ques- 
tions that have arisen regarding the effects of the legislative changes 
of 1957. 

Several bills relating to the laws of arrest and search and seizure 
were referred to this committee for interim study. We have not re- 
stricted our study to the specific terms of those bills but have chosen 
to deal with the subjects generally. In doing so we have had the ad- 
vantage of testimony given at two legislative hearings, the first of which 
was held in San Francisco on July 28 and 29, 1958, by the Assembly 
Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. The second hearing was held 
in Sacramento on February 18 and 19, 1960, by the Assembly Interim 
Committee on Criminal Procedure. The list of witnesses heard on these 
two occasions will be found in Appendix J. 

1 Rios V. U.S. 80 S. Ct. 1431 ; Elkhis v. U.S. SO S. Ct. 1437. 

^Ohnstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 485; Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383, 345; Wolf v 
Colorado, 338 U.S. 25; Irvine v. PeoiHe of State of California, 347 U.S. 128, 132; 
People V. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2cl 905; Benanti v. U.S., 355 U.S. 96; 
People V. Before, 242 N.Y. 13, 21, 150 N.E. 585, 587 ; Breithaupt v. Ahram, 
58 N.M. 385, 271 P.2d 827; Elkins v. U.S., SOS Ct. 1437; Brinegar v. U.S., 
338 U.S. 160, ISl; On Lee v. U.S.. 343 U.S. 747, 758. Yale Kamisar, "Wolf and 
Lustig Ten Years Later : Illegal State Evidence in State and Federal Courts," 
^,.? Minn. L.Rev (1959). W. O. Douglas, "The Means and the End" 1959 Wasli. 
U.L.Q. (1959). 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3rd Edition, 1940) Sec. 2184. Zelman 
Cowen, "The Admissibility of Evidence Procured Through Illegal Searches in 
British Commonwealth Jurisdictions," 5 Vanderbilt L.Rev. 523 (1952). 

"See Judge Murray Draper (CCA. 1st App. Dist. ), "The Cahan Case and Probable 
Cause," California Bar Journal, May-June, 1959, p. 251, and Bonnie Lee Martin, 
Probable Cause to Arrest and Admissibility of Evidence, Printing Division, Docu- 
ments Section, Sacramento, California, 1960. 


The following report deals specifically and individually with the 
various changes that were made in the laws of arrest by the adoption 
of A.B. 1857. It also considers proposals for possible revision of cer- 
tain other sections of tlie Penal Code. 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 

833. No such section 833. A peace officer may search for 

dangerous weapons any person 
whom he has legal cause to arrest, 
whenever he has reasonable cause 
to believe that the person pos- 
sesses a dangerous weapon. If the 
officer finds a dangerous weapon, 
he may take and keep it until the 
completion of the questioning, 
when he shall either return it 
or arrest the person. The arrest 
may be for the illegal possession 
of the weapon. 

Section 833 

There is apparently some question as to the intent of the new section. 
For example, two Legislative Counsel opinions state : 

"... The effect of the provision permitting arrest for illegal 
possession of the weapon appears to be that though it develops 
that there is no basis for arrest of the suspect for the offense which 
the officer had probable cause to believe he had committed, the 
suspect ma}' nevertheless be arrested for illegal possession of the 
weapon turned up by the search authorized by this section."'* 


"New Section 833, Penal Code, relating to search for weapons, 
offers interesting possibilities. If a case is a proper one, under that 
section, for searching for a weapon, and the officer does search 
the suspect, it may be that in the course of the search the officer 
will come across evidence of another crime, e.g., marijuana. It 
would seem that this would be deemed legally obtained and admis- 
sible. (See People v. Ortiz, 147 Cal. App. 2d 248)." ^ 

An analysis of the 1957 changes prepared by two attorneys for the 
Judicial Council says of this section: 

"The question has been raised elsewhere whether an arrest for 
possession of a dangerous weapon which is discovered through a 
search initiated illegally is allowed by the last sentence of Section 
833. Probably the provision is confined to cases where there is 
legal cause for the search. In the absence of such an interpretation 
the law has been changed. ' ' ^ 

However, District Attorney Thomas C. Tiyncli of San Francisco 
told a legislative committee: 

"... I understand there's an opinion of the Legislative Counsel, 
and I have heard it expressed by others, that this section is au- 

« LeRislativo Counsel Opinion No. 1012. Feb. 3, 19r.8. 
■* Legislative Coun.sel Opinion No. 119r), Feb. 28, 1958. 

• Report prepared by Judicial Council Staff for the Judicial Council of the State of 
California. July 17. 1958. p. 6. 


thority for detention by police officers and I cannot read that 
into it. In fact, I think the section is meaninpfless. Originally it 
was proposed, as you will recall, that the police officers he given 
some enlarged authority to search a person when they felt that 
they might have a dangerous weapon which, of course, would be 
something that would put the officer in peril. 

"As the section now reads it says the peace officer may search 
for dangerous weapons any person whom he has legal cause to 
arrest whenever he has reasonable cause to believe the person 
possesses a dangerous weapon. It also goes on to say that after 
the search is over he has to give the weapon back or charge the 
man with having it. That, to me, is meaningless because if you have 
reasonable cause to arrest a man you have a right to search him 
so I don't see where that enlarges any power of a police officer to 
make a search for a weapon. Where it enlarges his power to make 
a so-called detention arrest I fail to see. I think that is a matter of 
practical application. I haven't seen this section used in that 
manner. ' ' '^ 

The present confusion as to the intent of this section can be cleared 
up either by repeal or by the simple amendment which is set out in the 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 

834a. No such section. 834a. If a person has knowledge, or by 

the exercise of reasonable care, 
should have knowledge, that he is 
being arrested by a peace officer, 
it is the duty of such person to 
refrain from using force or any 
weapon to resist such arrest. 
Section 834a 

It is generally agreed that the purpose and effect of this new section 
is to abrogate the traditional common law right to resist an unlawful 
arrest, by force if necessary. 

The Legislative Counsel comments : 

"The chapter added Section 834a, Penal Code, providing that 
if a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care 
should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace officer, 
it is his duty to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist 
an arrest. Unless the word 'lawfully' is read into this provision 
before 'arrested', this section changed the law. The general rule 
formerly was that a lawful arrest may not be resisted and an un- 
lawful arrest mav be resisted (see People v. Spinosa, 115 Cal, App. 
2d 659 ; 5 Cal. Jur. 2d 186 ; Sees. 692-694, Pen. C. ; Sec. 50, Civ. 


The analysis prepared for the Judicial Council says of this section : 

"It is possible that Section 834a, in imposing the 'duty' on a 
person arrested to refrain from resisting the arrest, has the effect 

■^ See Transcript of Assembly Interim Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Con- 
stitutional Rights, San Francisco, California, July 28, 29, 1958, p. 96. 
8 Legislative Counsel Opinion No. 1012, Feb. 3. 1958. 


of autlioriziiifr tlie ultimate arrest if the suspect resists what would 
otherwise be an unlawful arrest. ' ' ^ 

The written arfjument in support of A.B. 1857 which was presented 
to the Legislature in 1957 says of this section : 

"Altliou<ih no statute in California prohibits physical resistance 
to known official action in excess of authority — the courts have 
stated: 'They attempt to justify their resistance upon the «rround 
that they Avere entitled to resist an unlawful attack ui)on them by 
the sheriff. That, however, is not the law. It is the duty of a citizen 
to obey the commands of a peace officer f>iven in his line of duty. 
Tf the officer is exceeding: his authority, the recourse of the citizen 
is to the courts, and not to open resistance.' People v. Yuen, 32 
Cal. App. 2d 151. (On denud of appellant's petition for hearing 
in Supreme Court, the eourt withheld 'approval of the conclusions 
of law contained in the' quoted portion). Tn a similar case, People 
v. Spear, 32 Cal. App. 2d 165, the court stated, 'The law does 
not countenance a breach of the public peace in order to enforce 
a private right. Courts are created for the purpose of determining 
those rights and any other rule would result in private battles 
going on at various times and places, to the great inconvenience 
of the general public. Such a rule is not to be accepted or ap- 

"At the present time our code law permits citizens to forcibly 
resist an unlawful arrest, even thougli they know of the official 
position of the officer and the official duty that he is attempting 
to perform. No matter how good the intentions of the officer and 
how scurrilous the deeds of the citizen — unless the officer can jus- 
tify his actions under Penal (^ode 836 (and a court may later 
declare them unlawful by a 4 to 3 decision) the citizen may use 
'any necessary force' (Civ. Code 50) or 'resistance sufficient to 
prevent the oifense' (Penal Code 693) to prevent the officer from 
carrying out what he mistakenly believes to be his sworn duty. In 
the days of the common law, when constables were armed with 
staffs or at best, a sword, and citizens were equally armed, and 
to be arrested meant months in jail, chained with leg irons, and 
with little if any hope of bail, awaiting the yearly session of the 
court, there Avas good reason for allowing such resistance. But to- 
day, the reason has disapi)eared with tlie advent of a speedy trial — 
presentment before a magistrate without unnecessary delay and 
other modern criminal procedure. By law, peace officers are re- 
quired to carry firearms — and by the same law, citizens are pro- 
hibited from so doing. The only person who could profit by being 
ix-niiitted to lawfully resist a peace officer is a person who illegally 
carries concealed weapons and as such, is a threat himself to good 
order. "i« 

The theory behind the conmiou law liglil of resistance wliicli is still 
followed in England, is well described by Sir Alfred Denning: 

"If tlie police should overstep the mark and arrest a man when 
they have no lawful authority to do so, he has the same rights as 

" Hoport prepared by Judicial Council Staff, op. cit., p. 20. 
'" Emphasis ours. 


against the police as he would have against any private individual 
who unlawfully arrested him. He is entitled to resist the unlawful 
arrest, if need be, by force. If a ticket collector or a policeman 
tried to arrest a passenger for travelling without paying his fare, 
when he was willing to give his name and address, he would be 
entitled to knock them down rather than go with them. If he sub- 
mitted to the arrest and went, he would be entitled to obtain his 
immediate release by means of a writ of habeas corpus : and, after 
obtaining his release, he would be entitled to bring an action for 
damages against them for false imprisonment. 

"It should not be supposed that, in laying down these principles, 
the judges have any desire to encourage citizens to resist lawful 
authority. They do not. Nor has that been their effect. It is simply 
a question of balancing the conflicting interests. Social security 
requires that the police should have power to make a lawful arrest, 
but individual freedom requires that a man should have power to 
resist an unlawful arrest and, if need be, by force. That is proved 
by the experience of France. In that country no citizen has any 
right to defend himself against the police or other public officers. 
Even if they are acting quite unlawfully, as, for instance, if they 
arrest a man without any justification at all, or beat him quite 
unmercifully; or if they force an entry into his house by night 
without any warrant, he must submit to it all. He must not hit 
back and must not defend himself or his house. If he does he is 
guilty of the criminal offense of rebellion.^^ The only thing a citi- 
zen can do is to submit and complain afterwards. We are told by 
a writer on French Criminal Procedure that this led to the 'passage 
a tabac', which took its name from the passage which leads from 
the charge room to the cells in any police station. If a prisoner 
had violently resisted arrest that passage, which was usually dark, 
was lined on both sides by policemen, who rained blows on the 
unfortunate accused as he passed between them to the cell. This 
cowardly practice was not even officially denied, but efforts have 
been made to suppress it, and probably now only occurs in excep- 
tional cases.^^ This shows how, even in a free country, the law, by 
giving to police officers an authority which is wider than abso- 
lutely necessary, may lead to grave abuse, 

"The Balance of Interests 

"The way in which we in England have balanced conflicting 
interests on this important point — the power of arrest — is a model. 
The police are not regarded here as the strong arm of the execu- 
tive, but as the friends of the people. So much is this the case that 
any case of assaulting or obstructing the police arouses great in- 
dignation. And no one is inclined to resist the authority of the 
police, because it can safely be assumed to be lawfully used. The 
reason is twofold : on the one hand, the law does not put into the 
hands of the police any more power than is absolutely necessary: 

ispanstin H61ie (see note 6), p. 161. 

20V^rlght on French Criminal Procedure, 44 L.Q.R. at p. 339. 


on the other hand, the police are, on the whole, such a fine body of 
men that they do not abuse the powers which they have." ^^ 

This committee fails to see that it can be a "duty" of a peace officer 
to make an unlawful arrest. At the same time, we recognize that a 
peace officer should be protected from excessive resistance. We there- 
fore propose the following amendment to Section 834a: 

However, for the purpose of Section 148 of the Penal Code 
neither an unlawful arrest nor an attempt to make an unlawful 
arrest shall constitute a "duty". No peace officer shall assert any 
cause of action, in any legal proceeding or recover any damages 
in any legal proceeding, against the person arrested or attempted 
to be arrested if such arrest or attempted arrest was unlawful, 
unless (1) the peace officer received injuries and such person used 
greater force than reasonably necessary to resist the arrest; (2) 
such person used a dangerous weapon; or (3) such person actually 
committed the offense for which the arrest was made or attempted. 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 

835. An arrest is made by an actual 835. An arrest is made by an actual 
restraint of the person of the de- restraint of the person, or by sub- 

fendant, or by his submission to mission to the custody of the ofR- 

the custody of an officer. The de- cer. The person arrested may be 

fendant must not be subjected to subjected to such restraint as is 

any more restraint than is neces- reasonable for his arrest and de- 

sary for his arrest and detention. tention. 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 

S35a. No such section. 835a. Any peace officer who has reason- 

able cause to believe that the per- 
son to be arrested has committed 
a public offense may use reason- 
able force to effect the arrest, to 
prevent escape or to overcome re- 

A peace officer who makes or 
attempts to make an arrest need 
not retreat or desist from his ef- 
forts by reason of the resistance 
or threatened resistance of the 
person being arrested ; nor shall 
such officer be deemed an aggres- 
sor or lose his right to self-de- 
fense by use of reasonable force 
to effect the arrest or to prevent 
escape or to overcome resistance. 

Section 835 

The Judicial Council staff analysis of the 1957 changes says of this 
section : 

"The ]957 Legislature substituted for the words 'not . . , any 
more restraint than is necessary' the words 'such restraint as is 
reasonable' in describing tlie quantity of permissible force when 

"Dennine, Alfred. Freedom Under the Law (London: Stevens & Sons, limited, 1949). 
pp. 19, 20. 


an arrest is made.^ (Footnote 8: Pen. Code, § 835; see also Pen. 
Code, § 835a.) But where the arrest is pursuant to a warrant, 
no change in lanixuapfe was made, and the officers are entitled to 
use 'all necessary means' to effect the arrest.^ (Footnote 9: Pen. 
Code, § 843.) 

"The questions are thus presented whether the test of permis- 
sible force has been altered and whether less force is not permitted 
to effect an arrest without a warrant than is permitted to eft'ect 
an arrest under authority of a warrant.^" (Footnote 10: See Peo- 
ple V. Lathrop, 49 Cal. App. 63, 67-68, suggesting that the use of 
'all necessary means' under Section 843 would permit even a shoot- 
ing to accomplish an arrest pursuant to a warrant, presumably 
without regard as to whether the alleged offense constituted a 
misdemeanor or a felony. ) " 12 

However, it is clear from the argument written in support of A.B. 
1857, that the intention of its drafters was exactly opposite to this con- 
clusion : 

"At the present time, codified law in reference to this subject 
is incomplete and indefinite. Penal Code section 835 prohibits 'any 
more force than is necessary for his arrest and detention' but 
Penal Code section 843, in reference to arrests under warrant, 
where defendant flees or resists allows the peace officer to 'use all 
necessary means to effect the arrest.' No substantial reason has 
been advanced to justify restricting such permissive force to ar- 
rests under warrant as distinguished from arrests ivithout ivarrant. 
The use of force, under particular circumstances, is also permitted 
by Penal Code sections 844-845 pertaining to breaking doors, etc. 
By Penal Code section 196, homicide, when committed by a peace 
officer is justified when (1) necessarily committed in overcoming 
actual resistance to the execution of some legal process; or (2) in 
the discharge of any other legal duty; or (3) when necessarily 
committed in retaking felons — or when necessarily committed in 
arresting persons charged with felony and who are fleeing from 
justice or resisting arrest. Further limitation on the use of force 
by peace officers is contained in Penal Code sections 147 (Inhu- 
manity to prisoners), 149 (Assaults by officers under color of 
authority) and 673 (Cruel and unusual punishment). 

' ' Permission to use any necessary force is granted to all persons 
by Civil Code 50 to protect themselves, families, servants or guests 
from wrongful injury and resistance sufficient to prevent a public 
offense is permitted by Penal Code Sections 692, 693 and 694. 

"It would seem desirable therefore, that the right to use force 
reasonable under all the surrounding circumstances in any arrest 
be affirmatively granted to peace officers and that such permission 
be made an integral part of the law of arrest." ^^ 

It might be noted at this point that if there was, prior to 1957, a 
difference in the degree of force that could be used to effect an arrest 

12 California. Judicial Council of the State of California. "1957 Statutory Changes in 

the California Law of Arrests," pp. 18-19. 
IS See Argument in Support of Assembly Bill 1857. Our emphasis. 


with a warrant and an arrest witliout a warrant, and greater force 
eonld be used to effect an arrest with a warrant, the difference conld 
be justified by the fact that in the case of arrest with a warrant a 
magistrate has previously determined that there is probable cause for 

We do not recommend any legislative change in this section at the 
present time but suggest that the Legislature review the effect its 
adoption has had upon the amount of force used in making arrests 
without warrants. 

Secfion 835a Penal Code 

This section as amended in 1957 appears to be a reasonable restate- 
ment of the law as it existed prior to that time. 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 
836. A peace-officer may make an ar- S3G. A jieace officer may make an arrest 

rest in obedience to a warrant de- in obedience to a warrant, or may 

livered to him, or may, without a without a warrant, arrest a per- 

warrant, arrest a person : son ; 

1. For a public offense committed 1. Whenever he has reasonable 
or attempted in his presence. cause to believe that the person 

2. When a person arrested has to l)e arrested has committed a 
committed a felony, although public offense in his presence, 
not in his presence. 2. When a person arrested has 

3. When a felony has in fact been committed a felony, although 
committed, and he has reason- "ot in his presence. 

able cause for believing the per- 3. Whenever he has reasonable 

son arrested to have committed cause to believe that the i)erson 

it. to l)e arrested has committed a 

4. On a charge made, upon a rea- felony, whether or not a felony 
souable cause, of the commission bi's in fact been committed. 

of a felony by the party ar- 

5. At night, when there is reason- 
able cause to believe that he has 
committed a felony. 

Secfion 836 

The "Argument in Support of Assembly Bill 1857 delating to the 
Law of Arrest in California" states, with regard to this section: 

"Section 2. Amending Penal Code Section SiJG. Secticm 836 
is the basic authority for a peace officer's right to arrest. It is 
])roposc<l herein to amend this section to truly reflect its basic 
purjxise, namely, to include all authority for arrest, as distin- 
guished from authority to stop, detain or question. Tlic following 
amendments have been made." 

And, as to 836, subsection 1, the Argument says: 

"The first subdivision incorporates the decision in Corrrsfonc 
V. Dnvics, 38 Cal. 2d 315, that a misdemeanor is conunitted in the 
officer's presence whenever he has reasonable cause to believe it 
is being committed in liis pri^sence." 


Witnesses who have testified regarding this change have expressed 
varying appraisals as to its effect. Excerpts from some of this testi- 
mony follow : 

Q. "In your opinion do you think this is a tremendous exten- 
tion of the law as it stood before ? 

A. ' ' Not at all. I do not think it is any extension. 
Q. "As I understood it, this was supposed to be a codification 
of what the case law had already held. Is that your view of it 1 

A. "That is my view of it and I do not think it has had any 
impact whatsoever. I have not seen any. ' ' ^^ 

"I think what is more basic to this is the dangerous part about 
the new tendency with regard to arrests for misdemeanors. The 
misdemeanor does not have to take place in the presence of the 
officer and the fact that the officer can have probable cause as a 
basis for picking him up and therefore not be subject to false 
arrest suit really gives him a greater power than the vagrancy 
statutes themselves envisioned so I would say that the statute 
itself coupled with probable cause gives the police power so that 
the rights of the little people and, as you see here, particularly 
the minority people are being really infringed upon. ' ' ^^ 

"Why do California police need such power? Do they deal 
with more serious offenses than the FBI? It is even absurd to 
suggest it. By selection we are discussing here only petty offenses. 
Is it a back door effort to subvert the Gahan doctrine by making 
an arrest an incident to a search rather than the other way 
around? When does an officer have reasonable cause to believe 
an offense is committed in his presence when it is not in fact 
committed in his presence? When aU the elements of the offense 
are not in fact performed although the officer believed they were? 
When they were not committed in his presence but he believed they 
were committed in his presence? If the latter, are we putting a 
premium upon officers who see and hear things that were not 
there ? 

"... Let me try to put another way what I have in mind. 
I think that even if the Coverstone doctrine had remained un- 
codified that there would have been much less threat to the civil 
liberties of Californians than with it codified; because then the 
standard would have been according to the statute in fact com- 
mission of the offense and in particular cases judges would have 
followed the Coverstone rule — in false arrest cases for example. 
They need not have followed the Coverstone rule in illegal search 
and seizure cases because Coverstone was a false arrest case. Or 
they might have held Coverstone to its narrow facts but now by 
making it a legislative enactment we have said to the police 
officer 'You decide not whether the offense was committed in your 
presence, but whether you can make it stick in court that you 
had reasonable cause to believe that the offense was committed in 
your presence.' And I think that just opens Pandora's box and 

" Testimony of Thomas C. Lynch, District Attorney, San Francisco at San Francisco 

15 Testimony of John McFeely, N.A.A.C.P., San Francisco at San Francisco hearing. 


is wholly unnecessary from the point of view of law enforcement 
in this state except as a means to ground a legal search and 
seizure thercal'ter and tlierefore in subversion of the Cahan 

"It should be added tliat under the present law, in theory, the 
police officer is individually liable, however, by reason of recent 
court decisions, the leading case being Covcrstone vs. Davies, 39 
Cal. 2d 315 and the enactment of Section 836 of the Penal Code 
in ]Ii57 the police oflieer enjoys an immunity from civil liability 
if the facts establish that he had probable cause to believe an 
olfense had been committed in his presence. 1 am inclined to 
agree with Justices Carter and Schauer's dissent that the effect 
of the decision is *. . . no action for false arrest, false imprison- 
ment or malicious prosecution shall lie against anyone connected 
witii tlic enforcement of tiie law', and that tiie effect of the adop- 
tion of this rule '. . . demonstrates the absurdity of the argument 
that a person whose rights have been violated by a police officer 
may obtain redress against tiie officer'. 1 feel very strongly that 
the Legislature was ill advised to enact JSection b3G, Subparagraph 
1 of the Penal Code in 1*J57 adopting the rule of probable cause 
justifying an arrest. A police oflicer would have to have little 
imagination not to conjure up a set of facts which would permit 
him to escape civil liability after having violated the rights of a 
law-abiding citizen."^' 

The requirement that a misdemeanor actually be committed in the 
presence of the arresting officer served to discourage arrests bused 
upon anachronistic, petty, or technical offenses when tiie real purpose 
of the arrest was to legalize a search. 

Although the change with regard to misdemeanor arrests was de- 
signed to codify the Covcrstone rule, that case dealt with the civil 
liability of the arresting officer rather than the admissibility of evi- 
dence gained by such an arrest. Thus, subsection 1 might easily be 
construed as ap])lying only to cases of civil liability. 

Of subdivision 2, the analysis made for tiie Judicial Council says: 

"The Supreme Court in 1955 left open the question whether 
subdivision (2) of section 830, which remains unchanged by the 
1957 amendments, authorizes an arrest when tlie person arrested 
is in fact guilty of a felony, even though thei'c is no reasonable 
cause lor tlie arrest.- (Footnote 2: People v. Brown, 45 Cal. 2d 
040, ()43.) The 1957 ameiidmcnts would seem to make it most 
difficult now to hold invalid an arrest made under such circum- 

"It is possible that the amendment to subdivision (1) of section 
83(i broadened the powers of peace officers to make arrests for 
public olfenses apparently committed in their iiresence. " '" 

M TiHtlniuiiy of UUhiiid A. Uuiuroft, N.A.A.C.P., San FninclMCO, at San Francisco 

" ToHlliiioiiy of Tony A. FruncolH, N.A. A.C.I'., San Francisco, at San Francisco 

'•{."iilirornlu. JiKllclal CJouncIl ut tho Stalo of California, "1057 Statutory ChanKt'M In 

till) California Law of ArroHts," pp. 8-9. 

•CKansacL ^bikbqiibk 



jB«,Iia<)CJaiLJk55i-:ac ift- ^mnui t ^tyi«£^ I"! J^CJL. i" 

JdS- 'BSbt jtesaoL inm;ii^ ait .t£=<s:s rnms -frgr. lE^ -itesvir -inti;:iTt; rbf 

•if :&» oxcBexnvJL :» . / 

At .^"- - • ' • :- 

At 3« - _ Z- 

*e- «x It- -zj 

arjKC thiec 



iteir-—- ' — ■ 

:i«/'v ic mxL 


At -macsaac a. .^ 

jlWJL *s- 7.-V.-.;; -5>j. 


'■iKIiii wwft h 

n^ja i«s ^ «t lasa^ 

»— &r«feC2 

^itrr ««c 


is wholly unnecessary from the point of view of law enforcement 
in this state except as a means to ground a legal search and 
seizure thereafter aud therefore in subversion of the Cahan 
rule." 16 

"It should be added that under the present law, in theory, the 
police officer is individually liable, however, by reason of recent 
court decisions, the leading case being Coverstone vs. Davies, 39 
Cal. 2d 315 and the enactment of Section 836 of the Penal Code 
in 1957 the police officer enjoys an immunity from civil liability 
if the facts establish that he had probable cause to believe an 
offense had been committed in his presence. I am inclined to 
agree with Justices Carter and Schauer's dissent that the effect 
of the decision is '. . . no action for false arrest, false imprison- 
ment or malicious prosecution shall lie against anyone connected 
with the enforcement of the law', and that the effect of the adop- 
tion of this rule ' . . . demonstrates the absurdity of the argument 
that a person whose rights have been violated by a police officer 
may obtain redress against the officer'. I feel very strongly that 
the Legislature was ill advised to enact Section 836, Subparagraph 
1 of the Penal Code in 1957 adopting the rule of probable cause 
justifying an arrest. A police officer would have to have little 
imagination not to conjure up a set of facts which would permit 
him to escape civil liability after having violated the rights of a 
law-abiding citizen. ' ' ^^ 

The requirement that a misdemeanor actually be committed in the 
presence of the arresting officer served to discourage arrests based 
upon anachronistic, petty, or technical offenses when the real purpose 
of the arrest was to legalize a search. 

Although the change with regard to misdemeanor arrests was de- 
signed to codify the Coverstone rule, that case dealt with the civil 
liability of the arresting officer rather than the admissibility of evi- 
dence gained by such an arrest. Thus, subsection 1 might easily be 
construed as applying only to eases of civil liability. 

Of subdivision 2, the analysis made for the Judicial Council says: 

"The Supreme Court in 1955 left open the question whether 
subdivision (2) of section 836, which remains unchanged by the 
1957 amendments, authorizes an arrest when the person arrested 
is in fact guilty of a felony, even though there is no reasonable 
cause for the arrest.- (Footnote 2: People v. Brown, 45 Cal. 2d 
640, 643.) The 1957 amendments would seem to make it most 
difficult now to hold invalid an arrest made under such circum- 

"It is possible that the amendment to subdivision (1) of section 
836 broadened the powers of peace officers to make arrests for 
public offenses apparently committed in their presence. ' ' ^^ 

w Testimony of Richard A. Bancroft, N.A.A.C.P., San Francisco, at San Francisco 

" Testimony of Terry A. Francois, N.A.A.C.P., San Francisco, at San Francisco 

"California. Judicial Council of the State of California, "1957 Statutory Changes in 

the California Law of Arrests," pp. 8-9. 


On this same subsection, a publication of the Attorney General's 
office states : 

"Reasonableness of the Search 

"B. Search as Incident to Lawful Arrest 

"The legality of the arrest is not necessarily determinative of 
the lawfulness of a search incident thereto. 

"AVhen defendant has in fact committed a felony an arrest 
would be lawful without probable cause (Pen. Code, § 836 (2)), 
but the search and seizure incident thereto would not be lawful.^ 
(Footnote 9 : People v. Brown, 45 Cal 2d 640, 648 ; People v. Bur- 
gess, 170 Cal. App. 2d 36 ; People v. Ingle, 173 A.C.A. 670, 673.) " ^^ 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 

841. The person makiug the arrest must 841. The person making the arrest must 
inform the person to be arrested inform the person to be arrested 
of the intention to arrest him, of of tlie intention to arrest him, of 
the cause of the arrest, and the tlie cause of tlie arrest, and the 
authority to make it, except when authority to make it, except when 
the person to be arrested is actu- the person making the arrest has 
ally engaged in the commission of reasonable cause to believe that 
or an attempt to commit an of- the person to be arrested is actu- 
fense, or is pursued immediately ally engaged in the commission of 
after its commission, or after an or an attempt to commit an of- 
escape. fense, or the person to be arrested 

is pursued immediately after its 
commission, or after an escape. 
Section 841 

The committee recommends that peace oiScers follow a policy of 
informing the arrested person of the charge against him when there is 
any chance that he might not already know it, and in all cases in which 
the arrested person asks the cause of his arrest. Such a policy would be 
helpful in maintaining a co-operative attitude on the part of the public. 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 

842. If the person makiug the arrest is S42. An arrest by a peace officer acting 
acting under the authority of a under a warrant is lawful even 
warrant, he must show the war- though the otRcer does not have 
rant, if required. the warrant in his possession at 

the time of the arrest, but if the 
person arrested so requests it, the 
warrant shall be shown to him as 
soon as practicable. 
Section 842 

Some objections have been made to the phrase "as soon as practica- 
ble" in this section on the grounds that it is too vague to be of much 
value to the person arrested. The "Argument in Support of Assembly 
Bill 1857, relating to the laws of arrest in California ..." says: 

"Warrants are generally on file in the main office of a police 
or sheriffs department, and should be able to be produced well 
within two hours in any part of any city or county, thus avoiding 
any undue hardship on any person. ' ' 

1" California. Department of Justice. Probable Cause to Arrest and Admissibility of 
Evidence, by Bonnie Lee Martin. Rev. Ed. (Sacramento: 1960), p. 157. 

2 — L-2142 


In view of this statement, it would not be unreasonable to allay fears 
of abuse of this section by adding a requirement that the warrant be 
shown to the person arrested within two hours after his arrest. We are, 
therefore, proposing such an amendment in our recommendation, 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 

847. A private porson who has arrested 847. A private person who has arrested 
another for the commission of a another for the commission of a 

public offense must, without uu- public offense must, without un- 

necessary delay, take the person necessary delay, take the person 

ari'ested before a magistrate, or arrested before a magistrate, or 

deliver him to a peace officer. deliver him to a peace officer. There 

shall be no civil liability on the 
part of and no cause of action 
shall arise against any peace offi- 
cer, acting within the scope of his 
authority, for false arrest or false 
imprisonment arising out of any 
arrest when : 

(a) Such arrest was lawful or 
when such peace officer, at the 
time of such arrest had rea- 
sonable cause to believe such 
arrest was lawful ; or 

(b) When such arrest was made, 
pursuant to a charge made, 
upon reasonable cause, of the 
commission of a felony by the 
person to be arrested ; or 

(c) When such arrest was made 
pursuant to the requirements 
of Penal Code Sections 142, 
838 or 839. 

Secfion 847 

As to the effect of the amendments to this section, then Attorney 
General Edmund P. Brown stated: 

"The right to sue for false arrest and false imprisonment as it 
existed prior to this amendment is identical to the right under this 
amendment. The citizen had a right to sue for false arrest prior 
to the amendment where the officer acted unlawfully or without 
reasonahle cause; such remains the law. This section simply codi- 
fies the existing judicial decisions on the subject."^" 

The written argument for A.B. 1857 said of this section: 

"If the officer involved is orally ordered by a magistrate to ar- 
rest some person wlio committed or attempted to commit a public 
offense (even though not in the presence of the officer) Penal Code 
section 838 requires him to arrest such pei-son, although no au- 
thority for such arrest appears in Penal Code section 836, at pres- 
ent, or as to be amended (See Frazier v. Moffatt, 108 Cal. App. 
(2d) 379). The .same is true of a demand made of the officer to 
aid in an arrest, under Penal Code Section 839, wherein he would 
be chargeable as a principal. 

*• See transcript of Assembly Interim Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Con- 
stitutional Rights, San Francisco; July 28-29, 1958, p. 17. 


"Therefore in order to enable the officer to carry out these 
code requirements, he should be protected by a code provision 
specifying his immunity from liability when carrying out the 
specific demands of the code?'^ 

"That a peace officer is not liable for false arrest or false im- 
prisonment when the arrest is lawful or when he has reasonable 
cause to believe the facts constitute a lawful arrest, has long been 
the law in California (See Murphy v. Murray, 74 Cal App 726; 
Dragna v. White, 45 Cal (2d) 469; Miller v. Glass, 44 Cal (2d) 
359, nor is he liable for malicious prosecution for acts done within 

the scope of his authoritv. (See White v. Towers, 37 Cal 2d 

727.) "22 

In response to a question regarding a peace officer's liability under 
Section 847 as it existed prior to the amendments, the Legislative 
Counsel stated : 

"You have asked that we discuss the law (apart from such effect 
as the 1957 amendment of Section 847, Penal Code, may have had) 
relating to the liability of a peace officer who accepts custody of 
an arrested person from a private citizen who has made the arrest. 

"In the time available to us, we have not found any reported 
case in which an attempt Vv^as made to hold an officer liable for 
false arrest or false imprisonment in these circumstances. How- 
ever, it is difficult to see how any liability of the officer could arise 
merely from the act of accepting delivery of the arrested person 
from the citizen who made the arrest. Section 847 provides that a 
private person who has arrested another for the commission of a 
public offense must, without unnecessary delay take the person 
before a magistrate or deliver him to a peace officer (see, however, 
Section 849, Pen. C, referring only to taking the arrested person 
before a magistrate). Though Section 142 of the Penal Code has 
not been construed in this context, we note that the section makes 
a peace officer who willfully refuses to 'receive . . . any person 
charged with a criminal offense ' guilty of a felony, and this section 
could literally be applied to the situation in question. In any event, 
acceptance of delivery of the arrested person from the arresting 
citizen would seem to be in accordance with law and not an act 
giving rise to liability. Of course, the officer might thereafter be 
guilty of acts or omissions giving rise to liability, just as in the 
case of an arrest originally made by the officer himself." 

A further question was put to the Legislative Counsel regarding the 
meaning of the phrase "acting within the scope of his authority" as 
it is used in this section. The counsel's opinion on this question said: 

"The term 'scope of his authority,' as used in Section 847, has 
not been construed by the courts. In cases antedating the 1957 
amendment, it was indicated that this term, used with reference 
to acts of peace officers, refers to lawful acts, and is not the same 

-'■ Emphasis ours. 

~ White V. Towers, a 4-3 decision, sets out, in the majority opinion and the dissent, 
detailed arguments on the desirability of allowing a suit for malicious prosecu- 
tion. A recent and most interesting civil liability case is Davis, et al. v. Kendrick, 
52 A.C. 530 (July, 1959). This was an action brought to recover damages for 
wrongful death caused by an assault by defendant policeman. 


as 'color of law' {White v. Towers, 37 Cal. 2d 727, 733; Silva v. 
MacAnley, 135 Cal. App. 249, 257). However, from the context 
in which the term is used in Section 847 we believe it is evident 
that the term was intended to cover more than that which a peace 
officer can lawfullj' be authorized to do. The section is plainly 
intended to confer immunity with respect to certain unlawfid acts 
(see, partictdarly, paragraph (a) of 8cc. 847 )P The term in ques- 
tion is more commonly used in the field of agency, with reference 
to the extent to which an agent can bind his principal, and it maj- 
be that the term is used in somewhat the same sense as 'apparent 
authority'"' in the field of agency (see 2 C.J.S. p. 1182 et seq. ; 
3 C.J.S. p. 138 et seq.). However, we must conclude that the 
meaning of 'scope of his authority' in Section 847 is uncertain." 

Some concern has been expressed as to the effect this amended section 
may have upon civil liability for false imprisonment. For example, the 
analysis prepared for the Judicial Council comments : 

"Apparent Effect on Law 

"Prior to 1IJ57 the question as to whether there existed a civil 
cause of action against peace officers for false arrest or false im- 
prisonment when the arrest was made without a warrant seemed 
to depend primarily on whether the detention was authorized b}' 
section 836 of the Penal Code.^ (Footnote 1 : 'The question whether 
the officers made an unlawful arrest, subjecting them to damages 
for false imprisonment, is governed by section 836 of the Penal 
Code 111' {Hughes v. Orel), 36 Cal. 2d 854, 857.) See Miller v. 
Glass, 44 Cal. 2d 359, 362; Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal. 2d 315, 
319-320; Oppenheimer v. City of Los Angeles, 104 Cal. App. 2d 
545, 549 ; 22 Cal. Jur. 2d 46 ; cf . Peterson v. Bohison, 43 Cal. 2d 
690 (arrest by private person) ; Colly cr v. 8. II. Kress & Co., 
5 Cal. 2d 175, 180-181 (arrest by private person) ; Mvrphy v. 
Murray, 74 Cal. App. 726, 729 (arrest by peace officer).) 

''One exception should be noted. Even though a lawful arrest 
occurred, an action for false imprisonment could be maintained 
if the suspect was detained for an unreasonable period prior to 
being taken before a magistrate. {Dragna v. White, 45 Cal. 2d 
469, 472.) It is not clear whether the 1957 amendments have abro- 
gated this rule. (See text to Part VI, pages 28 and 34.) 

"Amended section 847 appears to have expanded this test by 
providing that in certain situations peace officers are not civilly 
liable for false or false imprisonment regardless, apparently, 
of the validity of the arrest. The scope of such immunity is dis- 
cussed in the remainder of this Part. 

". . . No liability for false arrest exists if the arrest was lawful. 
The rule, however, has been that, if a suspect were detained for 
an unreasonable period of time following his lawful arrest, there 
could be liability for false imprisonment.'"' (Footnote No. 5: Dragna 
V. White, 45 Cal. 2d 469, 472: Kaufman v. Brown, 93 Cal. App. 
2d 508, 511.) Section 847 possibly abrogates this rule by immuniz- 
ing officers from actions for false imprisonment 'arising out of any 
arrest when: (a) Such arrest was lawful. . . .' " 

=° lOmphasis ours. 


The same objection was made by some of the witnesses who testified 
at legislative hearings: 

"I noticed the Judicial Council opinion suggests that under the 
detention section on page 49, part 1, there exists a question of 
whether a suit for false arrest or false imprisonment still lies. It is 
unclear. It seems to be unclear because it states in another section, 
I think 847 that if there was a valid arrest that no suit for false 
imprisonment or false arrest shall lie. ' ' -■* 
and : 

Q. "Your position generally is that you are satisfied with the 
changes made by the Legislature in 1957 but you would oppose 
further attempts to enact those provisions which were rejected by 
the Legislature in 1957? 

A. "Basically that is correct. I do find I quarrel a little bit with 
1857 on the immunity of a police officer from suit for false im- 
prisonment or false arrest. The false arrest part is all right if it 
is made upon probable cause but the false imprisonment is some- 
thing different. A police officer can have good grounds to arrest 
an individual and after he has found out that there was no crime 
committed he can still keep him in jail on suspicion. They gen- 
erally do for about seventy-two hours so that portion I do not 
think is fair — the false imprisonment to an extent."-'' 

This committee is of the opinion that Section 847 was not intended 
to confer immunity for a false imprisonment which originated in a 
lawful arrest. The testimony of those persons who drafted the 1957 
amendments indicates that they simply desired to codify existing 
case law on the subject. We know of no court opinion holding that 
a lawful arrest can validate a subsequent false imprisonment. Never- 
theless, in view of the apparent confusion on this point, we recom- 
mend that the section be amended to clarify its intent regarding false 

The problems described in Legislative Counsel Opinion No. 1260 
with regard to the degree of immunity conferred by Section 847 allow 
no simple solution. We agree with the California Supreme Court that : 

"Police officers are guardians of the peace and security of the 
community; their problems are manifest and complex and they 
should not be held to accountability greater than that required 
of any other reasonable or prudent man under like circum- 
stances. ' ' 2® 

At the same time, the individual citizen is entitled to some protec- 
tion and should be reimbursed or compensated for injury done to 
him without right and under color of law. This is an historical conflict 
between two interests, both of which must be protected in order to pre- 
serve democratic government. We do not believe that we can, as yet, 
offer a satisfactory proposal for revision of this section. We suggest, 

^ Testimony of Lawrence Speiser, Attorney, A.C.L.U. of Northern California at San 

Francisco hearing. 
25 Testimony of Philip Erbsen, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, at San Francisco 

^People V. Ingle, 53 A.C. 408 (California Supreme Court Crim. 6564, Jan. 19, I960). 



however, tliat this problem should be studied at length during the next 
interim and legislation proposed to balance, as perfectly as possible, 
a vigorous law cnlorcomcnt policy with freedom from arbitrary police 


BEFORE 1957 
849. AVhon an arrest is made without 849. (a) 
a warrant by a peace officer or 

private person, the person arrested 
must, without unnecessary delay, 
be taken before the nearest or most 
accessible magistrate in the county 
in which the arrest is made, and a 
complaint stating the chai-ge 
against the person, must be laid 
before such magistrate. 

AFTER 1957 
When an arrest is made with- 
out a warrant by a peace of- 
ficer or private person, the 
person arrested, if not other- 
wise released, must, without 
unnecessary delay, be taken 
before the nearest or most ac- 
cessible magistrate in the 
county in which the offense is 
triable, and a complaint stat- 
ing the charge against the 
arrested person, must be laid 
before such magistrate, 
(b) Any peace ofiicer may release 
from custody, instead of tak- 
ing such person before a mag- 
istrate, any person arrested 
without a warrant whenever : 

(1) He is satisfied that there 
is no ground for mak- 
ing a criminal complaint 
against the person ar- 
rested. Any record of such 
arrest shall include a rec- 
ord of the release here- 
under and thereafter shall 
not be deemed an arrest 
but a detention only. 

(2) The person arrested was 
arrested for intoxication 
only, and no further pro- 
ceedings are desirable. 

(3) The person arrested was 
arrested for a misde- 
meanor, and has signed 
an agreement to appear 
in court or before a mag- 
istrate at a place and 
time designated, as pro- 
vided in this code. 

Section 849 

Tliis section is one of those most extensively changed by the 1957 

Before getting into the changed portions of the section, it might be 
well to discuss the interpretation of a i)hrase which is found in the 
section both before and after 1957 and that is "witliout unnecessary 

Many persons have interpreted this phrase to mean no niore delay 
than the physical facts require, plus the earliest availability of a 
magistrate. From the testimony before the committee, it is clear 
that this is not the general interpretation now and has been even less 


SO in the past. One police chief expressed his present understanding 
of the phrase as follows : 

Q. "I've been interested in the testimony we've heard so far 
about the practical interpretation placed on requirement that a 
person be taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay. 
From some of the testimony we've heard before, I gather that 
the requirement is sometimes interpreted to mean that you can 
delay not only so long as the physical facts require until the mag- 
istrate is available, but also long enough to conduct a little in- 
vestigation to check out the officer's story and check out the story 
of the arrested persons, so that you may in fact delay longer 
than is absolutely necessary beyond the time when the magistrate 
is first available, subject only to a 48-honr absolute limit. Does 
that jibe with your understanding?" 

A. "Yes, pretty much. It would have to be, I think, a flexible 
situation as to what is deemed to be a necessary delay. In a serious 
felony-type crime, a necessary delay might mean quite a consider- 
able length of time, where in a minor type of situation where we 
only had to interrogate a couple of victims who might need to 
determine the validity of this charge, and then if we waited say 
even a period of 8 to 10 hours, that could possibly be deemed 
unnecessary delay. It has to be considered a flexible situation. I 
don't think we can say a cut and dried time. We could put a maxi- 
mum on it which is in the statute. It still could be construed, and 
has been, I assume, in the courts where six hours could be unnec- 
essary delay. ' ' ^'^ 

One district attorney informed the committee that, prior to his ad- 
ministration, procedures governing felony arrests in his county were 
so complicated that some people stayed in jail as long as a week with- 
out getting before the magistrate.^^ It was this kind of procedure 
which led Judge Vallee to say : 

"... The detaining of persons in custody and not taking them 
before a magistrate without unnecessary delay is a prevalent prac- 
tice. We have yet to hear of any public prosecutor, complying 
with his oath of office, prosecuting any police officer for violation 
of Section 825. The police are permitted to flaunt, defy, and vio- 
late the law they have sworn to uphold by the officers whose duty 
it is to prosecute them. Detention of a prisoner without taking 
him before a magistrate without unnecessary delay is not only 
a violation of Section 825 : it deprives the person of his consti- 
tutional right to be admitted to bail (Const., Art. I, § 6), denies 
him a speedy preliminary hearing (Const., Art. I, § 8), deprives 
him of his right to be advised of his rights by a magistrate (Pen. 
Code, § § 858, 859), and in many cases deprives him of the right 
and opportunity to obtain counsel. (Pen. Code, § 825.) In the 
present case the detentions of Grace, Johnson, and Strain were 
obviously illegal. Grace was arrested on July 7, 1957; he was not 

27 Testimony of Francis L. Barnett, Chief of Police, Roseville, California, at Sacra- 
mento hearing. 

=8 Testimony of John M. Price, District Attorney of Sacramento County, at Sacramento 


taken before a magistrate until July 12. Johnson was arrested 
on July 11, 1957; he was not taken before a magistrate until July 
15 or 16. Strain was arrested on August 6 or 7, 1957 ; he was not 
taken before a magistrate until August 12. The ordinary motive 
for extended failure to take a prisoner before a magistrate is not 
unrelated to the purpose of extracting a confession. {Mallory v. 
Vniied States, 354 U.S. 449 (77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479).) 
It would seem that the only possible way of stopping the illegal 
practices of the police is a similar rule in the state courts. But 
as an intermediate reviewing court, we are bound by the deci- 
sions of the Supreme Court holding that the mere illegal detention 
of a person under arrest, no matter for how long, is not ground 
for excluding a confession. 

"The judgments and the orders denying new trials are affirmed. 
The appeals from the orders denying probation are dismissed. " ^^ 

Shinn, P. J., and "Wood (Parker) J., concurred. 

Appellants' petitions for a hearing by the Supreme Court were de- 
nied February 4, 1959. Carter, J., and Schauer, J., were of the opinion 
that the petition should be granted. 

Mr. Robert Burns, Assistant City Attorney of Los Angeles testified 
regarding detention practices as follows: 

Q. ". . . there have been examples of cases where people were 
not brought before a magistrate in 48 hours and I wonder just 
how often this happens, is there any special reason for it or has 
there been a change in practice since those cases, so that it now 
never happens. Just what is the answer? 

A. "No, it's happened quite regularly up to, you might say, the 
People vs. Grace. . . . 

Q. "Do I understand that the net effect of this, since Drngna 
vs. White, the Los Angeles Police Department, at any rate, has 
accepted the proposition that it is nccessai-y to issue the com- 
plaint and bring the person arrested before a magistrate. . . 

A. "Within forty-eight hours, 

Q. ". . . not to exceed forty-eight hours. 

A. "That is what we have — I've directed that ever since Dra</na 
vs. White. I think it's the only department in California that has. 
Since the Grace case, I think a lot of them are following it — I 
would say most people are. ' ' ^° 

Apparently the widespread presumption before Dragna vs. White, 
decided in 1055, and People vs. Grace, 1958, was that only the person 
arrested on a warrant must be taken before a magistrate within 48 

Q. "Mr. Burns, haven't the courts, though, so construed that, 
as far as the rights for the defendant or the arrested person are 
concerned, they do not make a distinction whether it's an arrest 
with a warrant or without a Avarrant? 

» People vs. Grace 166 C.A. 2d 68 : 332 P. 2d 811. 

» Testimony of Robert Burns, Assistant City Attorney of Los Angeles, at Sacramento 


A. "That is what the court has said in this case, in the IJragna 
Case I said, because we had three or four cases, if 48 hours hadn't 
gone by, why worry about it. That's the point 1 made in the 
Dragna vs. White. Now all you have to worry about is the right 
start — and then they took up several other cases which similarly 
had lumped the two, and said that forty-eight hours applies to 
both of them. 

Q. "Hasn't this been historical though, even before the Dragna 

A. "Not to any extent . . ."^^ 

Since a very small percentage of arrests were, and are, made with 
a warrant, in the great majority of cases the police felt themselves free 
to hold a defendant until they were ready to produce him before a 

A witness from the Alameda County District Attorney's office 
testified as follows regarding detention practices in his area: 

Q. "Did you follow a different procedure before the Supreme 
Court announced its interpretation of 825, in the case of Dragna 
vs. White? 

A. "I would say that in the last perhaps three or four years, 
there has been a growing consciousness of the duty of the officer 
involved, to charge the person or release him within this 48- 
hour period, . . . 

Q. "Whether he was arrested or not? 

A. " — yes, that's correct . . ."^^ 

The public defender of San Francisco suggested that Section 849, 
as amended in 1957, allows the old practices to continue more or less 
under color of law. 

Q. "Is it your feeling that Section 849 as amended in 1957 per- 
mits the arrest of a person without probable cause? 

A. "We haven't any doubt about it ... I think the law en- 
forcement officials have to have statutes under which to operate. 
I think they try to interpret them to the best of their ability. But 
when you find you get a statute on the book like Section 849, which 
isn't specific in what is meant by a reasonable period of time, 
... I say the Legislature is responsible, not the arresting offi- 
cer." ^^ 

We believe that the Penal Code should spell out the requirement 
that in all cases an arrested person shall be taken before a magistrate 
within 48 hours of his arrest, and that this period of time, excepting 
Sundays and holidays, shall be the maximum reasonable delay. It should 
also be made clear that an unreasonable delay may consist of far less 
time than 48 hours. If a schedule of bails has been made up, which 
includes the offense for which the person was arrested, he shall be 

3' Ibid. 

^ Testimony of Albert E. Hederman, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Alameda County, 
at Sacramento hearing. 

^ Testimony of Edward T. Mancuso, Public Defender, City and County of San Fran- 
cisco, at Sacramento hearing. 


entitled to make bail on a Sunday or a holiday. Section 825 should be 
amended to include arrests made witliout a warrant. 

In 1959 Assemblyman Louis Francis introduced a bill defining the 
term "booking". This definition has been added to the Penal Code 
as subdivision 21 of Section 7. 

"To 'book' signifies the recordation of an arrest in official police 
records, and the taking by the police of fingerprints and photo- 
graphs of the person arrested, or any of these acts following an 
arrest. ' ' ^-i 

Although there is now a definition of booking and a requirement that 
an arrested person be permitted to make one completed phone call 
after booking, there is no legal requirement that an arrested person 
be booked at all. It is a common practice to conduct the interrogation 
of a prisoner after his arrest, but before booking liim. Thus, the pur- 
pose of his phone call, to preclude incommunicado detention, is effec- 
tively frustrated.^"^ 

We recommend that an arrested person be booked within three hours 
of his arrest, or that the arresting officer shall file a statement with 
the magistrate explaining why the arrested person was not booked 
within three hours and indicating time and place of arrest, force, 
if any, used in effecting the arrest, all places to which the arrested 
person was taken prior to booking and the purpose of taking him to 
such places. 

Section 849a 

The first cliange made in this section, the addition of the phrase, 
"if not otherwise released," will be considered in conjunction with 
the provisions of 849(b). 

The second change made in this section was in regard to the magis- 
trate before whom the arrested person is taken. Before 1957 an arrested 
person was taken before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in 
the county in which ihe arrest was made. Since the 1957 change, such 
person is taken before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the 
connty in which the offense is triable. 

The "Argument in Support of Assembly Bill 1857 Relating to the 
Law of Arrest in California" stated of this change: 

"The second part of the amendment is made to cover arrests 
made by officers of one county in another county. For instance, 
if a San Francisco police officer without a warrant arrests a 
defendant in San Mateo County for an offense committed in San 
Francisco County, he is required now, under Penal Code section 
849, to take him before a San Mateo magistrate and seek a com- 
plaint there. This is an arbitrary and useless command, because 
the proper court and venue are in San Francisco County (See 
Penal Code Section 777 that jurisdiction lies in the county where 
the offense was committed). Therefore the additional amendment 
should be made to provide for presentment before the magistrate 
in the proper county. 

»« See Penal Code, Sec. 7.21, p. 5. 
» See Sec. 851.5. Op. Cit. 


''For all practical purposes, arrests made without warrant in 
one county for offenses committed in another county are restricted 
to felonies, because an arrest for a misdemeanor must be made at 
the time of the commission of the offense or in fresh pursuit of the 
offender (See Jackson v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. App. 2d 183). 
For arrests under warrmit, the person arrested for a misdemeanor 
may be admitted to bail in the county where arrested (Penal Code 
section 822) but a person arrested under a felony warrant must 
be returned to the county where the warrant was issued (Penal 
Code Section 821)." 

However, Penal Code Section 821 contains the following provision 
for bail : 

' ' If the defendant is arrested in another county, the officer must, 
upon being required by the defendant, take him before a magis- 
trate in that county, who must admit him to bail in the amount 
specified in the endorsement referred to in Section 815a, and direct 
the defendant to appear before the court or magistrate by whom 
the warrant was issued on or before a day certain which shall in 
no case be more than 10 days after such admittance to bail. If 
bail be forthwith given, the magistrate shall take the same and 
endorse thereon a memorandum of the aforesaid order for the 
appearance of the defendant. 

"If the warrant on which the defendant is arrested in another 
county does not have bail set thereon, or if the defendant arrested 
in another county does not require the arresting officer to take 
him before a magistrate in that county for the purpose of being 
admitted to bail, or if such defendant, after being admitted to 
bail, does not forthwith give bail, the arresting officer shall im- 
mediately notify the law enforcement agency requesting the arrest 
in the county in which the warrant was issued that such defend- 
ant is in custody, and thereafter such law enforcement agency 
shall take custody of such defendant within five days in the county 
in which he was arrested and shall take such defendant before 
the magistrate who issued the warrant, or before some other mag- 
istrate of the same county. ' ' ^^ 

At least some of the proponents of this change of venue were under 
the impression that a person arrested under this section would be en- 
titled to bail : 

"... Furthermore, it should be pointed out that an accused is 
still protected from unreasonable acts of the officer by the avail- 
ability of bail . . . "37 

This has not, however, been the opinion generally expressed to the 
committee. Following are some of the comments made upon this par- 
ticular change : 

"Penal Code Section 849 — the committee has questioned several 
individuals on this question as to whether there is some hiatus in 

s« California Penal Code, Sec. 821. 

s" Testimony of Edmund G. Brown at San Francisco hearing. 


the law on the situation where a person is arrested without a war- 
rant in a county other than the county in which the crime is triable. 
Can he get bail without KC'i>it? back to the county in which the 
crime was committed? Tlie answer appears to be in the code as 
it stands now, that no, he cannot. There does not appear to be any 
jurisdiction within the county where he is arrested and certainly, 
as Professor Sherry suggested, this should follow the same pattern 
as the situation where there is an arrest with a warrant. "^^ 

"... Section 849 is probably unconstitutional because it is in 
conflict with the constitutional right of bail ... " ^^ 

"lie certainly should have that jurisdiction. He (the magistrate 
in county of arrest) should also definitely have the jurisdiction of 
setting bail so that a person is not held awaiting the arrival of 
authorities from another jurisdiction. We recently had a case where 
a party was in jail for nearly 10 days and in that particular county 
they had a trial on. They said they didn't have an officer to send 
down. They were just going to have to wait until the trial was over 
and they could find someone to send down to pick them up. So that 
was it. The man stayed in jail until that period of time and there 
wasn't a thing we could do. We couldn't get him out on bail. We 
couldn't get him released or anything. 

"... We have had mam' cases where prisoners were taken into 
custody and held in prison for a period of five or six days, before 
they are picked up by the authorities from other counties, without 
any possibility of these people getting out on bail, in the mean- 
time. '"»" 

The State Bar of California, in December of 1959, took a position 
favoring amendment of this procedure in the manner which had earlier 
been proposed in A.B. 2039. The pertinent section of that bill, in- 
troduced by Assemblyman John A. O'Connell, has been summarized by 
the Legislative Counsel as follows : 

"^Modifies rules governing arrest on a felony warrant in a county 
other than the count}- from which the warrant issued, to provide, 
generally', that the person arrested shall be taken before a magis- 
trate in the county of arrest unless he expressly waives the right, 
rather than that he be taken before a magistrate of the county 
from which the warrant issued, unless he recjuires otherwise. How- 
ever, in cases in which anu)nnt of bail is not endorsed on warrant, 
and arrested person is taken before magistrate of county of arrest, 
the magistrate shall fix bail as otherwise i)rovide(l by law, or may 
refuse to fix bail if refusal is authorized by law. 

"Requires that a person arrested without a warrant must be 
taken before a magistrate in the county in which the arrest is 
made, rather tlian the county in which the offense is triable. Pro- 
vides, hoAvever, that defendant may waive right to be taken before 
magist?-ate of county of arrest. Details procedure to be followed 
Avhen person so arrested is taken before magistrate of county of 

"• Te.stimony of L.awrence W. Spelser at San Francisco hearing. 
"•Testimony of .Tames MncTniils at San Francisco hearing. 

"Testimony of Edward T. Mancuso, Tublic Defender, City and County of San Fran- 
cisco at Sacramento hearing. 


We recommend that the ehanjie, proposed in A.B. 2039, and ap- 
proved by the State Bar, be put into effect by the Legislature during 
the 1961 General Session. 

Section 849b 

The "Argument in Support of Assembly Bill 1857 Relating to the 
Law of Arrest in California" says of this change which was proposed 
in that bill : 

"... Present legal thinking (see Dragna v. White, 45 Cal. 2d 
469) indicates that while an arrest, based upon a reasonable cause, 
is lawful, yet a subsequent detention could be unlawful. Such 
would be the case if after arrest, but before arraignment, the 
arresting officer learned of facts which destroyed the belief upon 
which his reasonable cause was based. It would then be the duty 
of the arresting officer to take steps to cause the release of the 
person arrested from further custody. Yet under present code law, 
the officer does not have authority to release a person under arrest. 
Under Penal Code Section 853.1, a citation may now be issued in 
lieu of taking before a magistrate a person arrested for violation 
of a county ordinance, and a similar provision in respect to arrests 
for city ordinances is now before the State Legislature. This, in 
itself, should be sufficient reason for the adoption of the above 

It might be noted at this point that the issuance of a citation is not 
done ' * in lieu of taking before a magistrate ' ' in the same degree as the 
change made to this section. Under the procedure governing the issu- 
ance of citations for misdemeanors, the arrested person signs a written 
agreement to appear before the magistrate at a specified time and place. 
The magistrate fixes the amount of bail he thinks necessary to guarantee 
the appearance of the arrested person and may, if such person does not 
appear at the time specified, continue the proceedings against him. 
Thus, under the citation sections (853.1 for city or county ordinances 
and 853.6 for state misdemeanors) the discretionary power as to 
whether an arrested person should be held or released is retained by 
the magistrate. 

The analysis prepared for the Judicial Council points out that no 
clear limit is set upon the time within which an arrested person may be 
detained under this section : 

"The provision in Section 849 that a person arrested mu,st be 
taken before a magistrate 'without unnecessary delay' applies 
only to persons 'not otherwise released' pursuant to subdivision 
(b). There is no express requirement of a speedy release in subdi- 
vision (b). Unless 'not otherwise released' means 'not otherwise 
previously released,' it is not clear what duty is placed upon an 
officer to effect the release within a reasonable length of time." 


"... When a suspect is ultimately released pursuant to subdi- 
vision (b) of Section 849, possibly there is no restriction upon 
the length of his detention, and if this is true, it follows that it 


may not be possible to state a cause of action for false imprison- 
ment. ' ' 

The possibility that this section mi<?ht preelnde false imprisonment 
suits has already been considered in tliis report. See discussion under 
Section 847. 

There is a Avide diversity of opinion as to the effects of this section 
and also as to the desirability of revising it. Excerpts from some of the 
testimony on this section follow: 

"Now, the other section — 849, I will have to confess that is a 
type of procedure that we have used since 1944. This, as you 
recall, has been a subject of some controversy among district 
attorne^^s. I believe the district attorney of Ventura County wrote 
a law review article on the subject. 

"There have been those district attorneys who claim that once 
a man has been apprehended by a police officer or a peace officer 
there must be a complaint filed against him and he must be pro- 
duced in court and he must have bail placed. We have never be- 
lieved that. We believe that when a district attorney, if he is called 
upon to make a decision, comes to the conclusion that a man is not 
to be prosecuted for one reason or another, he should be imme- 
diately released and that it is not necessary to subject him to 
further legal proceedings."'*^ 

"... the notion of a detention with a disavowal of arrest would 
probably be unconstitutional under that section unless the Con- 
stitution itself were amended. "^- 

" Getting to the changes in the law of arrest which were made 
in 1957, 1 think there Avas an excellent comment in the oi)inion 
put out by the jndicial council which I realize has not j^et been 
adopted, that Penal Code Section 833 and 849b appear to autliorize 
searching, (luestioning, detention and release prior to an arrest. 
This could be sloppy draftsmanship. That is a little unclear but 
this interpretation, I think, is a valid one in looking at those 
sections. ' ' '^^ 

"Prior to 1957, Section 849 PC provided safeguards which 
tended to assure an arrested person fair treatment. It provided 
for a division of the function of government. The peace officer is 
made the accuser, the judge and the jury. Such authority vested 
in any one person is a contradiction of the theory of democracy. 
Obviously such a state of all'airs is completely devoid of fairness 
and would seem to violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the TJ. S. Constitution as well as the comparable 
provision of the California Constitution.""*^ 

"I would look at one ]nirticular cliange which I would have 
some rather definite opinions regarding. Tliis would be section 849 
which was amended by the Legislature in li)57. Broadly sj)eaking 
again. I feel that regardless of the benefits Avhich might be derived 
from Ihis ])articular section, thai thci-c would be a very definite 

*• Testimony of Thoma.s C. Lynch, District Attorney, San Francisco, at San Francisco 

*» Testimony of James Maclnnis, Practising Attorney, San Francisco, at San Fran- 
cisco hearing. 

"Testimony of Lawrence Spelser at San Francisco hearing. 

" Testimony ol Joseph G. Kennedy at San Francisco hearing. 


question as to the constitutionality of this sort of delegation of 
power to police and another point on which I certainly feel more 
capable of speaking would be, after being in the academic phase 
of police work for many years and in actual police work for many 
years, I don't feel that the police are ready for this type or this 
kind of responsibility. 

"... The number 3 section I would certainly recognize as a 
very progressive move in the law. The question that I raise would 
be with reference to subsections 1 and 2 . . . 

"... I think various proposals might be presented by police 
agencies themselves saying, 'We handle this particular situation 
in this particular way.' Still, this is the law at the present time 
and within the law itself we have a situation where, although it 
hasn't been mentioned here, I can very well see in the situation 
a great deal of opportunity for corruption. I'm not assuming that 
there is any nor am I assuming that there will be. But I'm saying 
that the section very definitely provides a fertile ground for this 
type of activity. Getting back to my original statement, I'm also 
saying that police agencies have not developed to the extent, ethi- 
cally and professionally, that I feel in my mind that we could 
afford to place this type of responsibility upon them. 

"... I think it's the type of responsibility that should be 
lodged elsewhere . . . 

Q. "Do you think that section was intended or may very well 
be used as a means for interrogation of suspects — 

A. ' * This sort of thing has been used for that and I think it can 
be used for those purposes now. 

"... My complaint is the fact that a greater percent of the 
offenses handled by the police are misdemeanor offenses and a 
greater percent of these offenses are handled strictly by the police, 
making the decisions, of course, as to whether an arrest should 
be made and also making an added decision as to whether a release 
should be had, which in my opinion, creates a fertile ground for 
corruption to say the least. It also places too much responsibility 
into the hands of the police. 

Q. "Are you suggesting then that a possible improvement in 
Section 849 might be the elimination of B (1) and an amendment 
to B (3) which would make it apply to both felonies and misde- 
meanors ? 

A. "That's right. "43 

Those persons who favor the retention of Section 849(b) in its 
present form contend that it is a convenience both to the police and 
to the arrested person. 

Opponents of the section argue that whatever convenience adheres 
to the arrested person under this arrangement is outweighed by the 
danger that police arrests and releases, unchecked by judicial super- 
vision, may make for a greater number of unwarranted arrests. The 
feeling is that the necessity of supervision encourages the police to make 

« Testimony of Dr. Allen Gammage, Supervisor, Law Enforcement Training, Sacra- 
mento State College, at Sacramento hearing. 


sure that ])robable cause exists before the arrest is made. Of this point 
the Public Defender of San Francisco testified as follows: 

Q. "Is it your feeling that Section 849 as amended in 1957 
permits the arrest of a person without probable cause? 
A. "We haven't any doubt about it, . . ."^^ 

It is impossible to learn from arrest records just what the practice 
has been throughout the state Avith regard to the use of this section. 
First of all, it is not necessary to make any record whatever of such 
a detention. Section 849 (b)l merely states "Any record of such arrest 
shall . . ."It does not require that sucli record be made. Police de- 
partments throughout the State follow widely varying practices of 
reporting such arrests. Some departments make no record at all; 
otliers report the arrest and show a release under Penal Code Section 
849; still others simply say "released" or "no complaint" without 
mentioning any specific section. The reason for the latter practice has 
been attributed to reluctance on the part of a police officer to use 
Section 849(b) 1 because it states that the release may be made when- 
ever "He is satisfied that there is no ground for nuiking a criminal 
complaint against the person arrested." 

The variation may best be illustrated by a felony arrest as a result 
of mistaken identity. In at least one city ^"^ the disposition would show 
that the arrest was the result of a mistake. In other areas, the same 
disposition would vary from "detention only" to "no complaint filed." 
The disposition shown upon such an arrest record can have a serious 
effect upon the social and economic future of an arrested person. 
Apart from such coiisiderations, tlie lack of any uniform booking pro- 
cedure makes it impossible to evaluate the results of different enforce- 
ment policies. For example, some departments show a remarkably 
high percentage of felony arrests in the "dismissed by police" cate- 
gory.'*^ Otliers show fewer felony arrests dismissed but release a great 
many who have been booked on "vagrancy " ^^ or "en route" charges. 
Still others show none of these dis])ositions in a disproportionate degree, 
but simply arrest and release under Section 849(b) without making 
any record at all. 

The need for uniform booking procedures was pointed out by a 
number of witnesses. 

" . . . *I submit that in an overwhelming majority of the cases 
in which an arrested person is booked cnroute, he is not wanted 
elsewhere and the arresting authorities are resorting to subterfuge, 
in order to prevent his release on bail.' In a majority of cases in- 
volving enroute bookings, the person held is of no great import- 
ance, in a criminal sense, and i)resents no problem to society. . . . 

" ... It seems to us that standardized methods of booking 
need to be established by the entire State. We feel uniform methods 
which are established should eliminate the enroute booking, ex- 
cepting cases where the arresting authorities have actual knowl- 
edge, either by way of teletype, wanted circular, or other methods 

"Testimony of Kdward T. Mancuso, Public Defender, City and County of San Fran- 
cisco, at Sacramento hearing. 
"See testimony of District Attorney John Price at Sacramento hearing. 
*• See Appendix F. 
«» See Appendix G. 


equally reliable, that a defendant is wanted in another jurisdic- 
tion "5« 

''It is evident from the testimony that there has been a cry- 
ing need for standard booking procedures. There are no standard 
booking procedures. It was explained that nothing is said about 
booking. You will not find booking in the code. The only thing is 
a section on "Keepers of a jail shall keep a register.' . . . " ^^ 

Q. "Dr. Gammage, what kind of overall statewide booking pro- 
cedure, if any, would you recommend ? A partially overall program 
or one that varies in each — 

A. "Yes, partially overall program. I think very definitely that 
when you're dealing in procedural matters you have such dif- 
ferences in size of agencies, such differences in regard to the man- 
power of the agency, that many agencies would be tremendously 
handicapped if they were required we'll say, by law, to pull a pro- 
cedure which is spelled out specifically for all agencies in the 
State. I think this would be very detrimental. However, I do think 
that in these situations a degree of uniformity can be established 
through discovering the core of the situation and requiring uni- 
formity in this respect. 

Q. "In some matters ? 

A. "Right. "52 

This opinion is, of course, not entirely unanimous. Reservations upon 
a local control basis were expressed by at least one witness and there are 
doubtless others who share his view : 

"I think that question more probably belongs in a police de- 
partment, as a matter of policy. I think there is a tendency towards 
uniformity all the time, by virtue of the CII, with a big part of 
these turned in to them. These meetings are held; police get to 
know each other ; they check methods ; and if the other fellow 's got 
a better method than you have, then you think about instituting 
it in your town. I think all of these are driving toward a uniform 
procedure. Our distances are less and we're getting more in each 
other's territories. Crime becomes a bigger business, so police de- 
tection has to become equally big, but whether or not you want 
uniform statistics, every time you make a uniform requirement, 
you take away from local authorities, local governments — and the 
whole United States is built on the idea, as I take it, that we don't 
want the government doing anything that the citizens can do best 
for themselves. And if the towns want to run it this way and it's 
still good, there's two choices — (a) or (b). If they want (a), why 
not let them have it, but I do think that you're driving toward 
these adoptions of uniform statistics. ' ' '^^' 

^ Testimony of Edward T. Mancuso, Public Defender, City and County of San Fran- 
cisco, at Sacramento liearing. 

^ Testimony of Lawrence Speiser at San Francisco hearing. . 

63 Testimony of Dr. Allen Gammage, Supervisor, Law Enforcement Trainmg, bacra- 
mento State College, at Sacramento hearing. , , . c, 

B3 Testimony of Robert Burns, Assistant City Attorney, Los Angeles, at Sacramento 


In view of the severe penalties involved, felony arrest statistics are 
of «i:reat importance. However, considered from the aspect of total 
nnmbers of peoi)le involved, the effects of misdemeanor arrests are far 
greater. The greatest point of contact between the citizen and the 
criminal law is throngli a misdemeanor arrest. At the time of the first 
such arrest, an individual forms his attitudes regarding all aspects 
of the administration of the criminal law. It is at this time that the 
greatest opportunity exists to attack the problem of the growing crime 
rate through a program of prevention. IJnfortunately, it is exactlj^ at 
this point that we find tlie greatest lack of information. 

Not knowing the causes of crime and the effects of various factors 
upon the crime rate makes it difficult to adopt legislation with a liigh 
degree of assurance that it is the most effective possible. The expense 
of collecting meaningful information regarding the administration of 
justice at the misdemeanor level could easily be outweighed by the 
financial savings made j^ossible by such a program. For example, could 
the cost of the present ANC program be cut significantly by an earlier 
and less costly program of vocational guidance at the local level? Does 
the handling of prisoners in certain types of institutions (jail camps, 
farms, overcroAvded facilities, etc.) affect the rate of recidivism? 

Various programs for the treatment of alcoholics are in operation 
throughout the State. There is, however, no effective followup of 
prisoners released. A reporting program on the misdemeanor level might 
make it possible to compare different treatment programs in terms of 
expense, rate of recidivism, etc. 

At the request of the committee, Mr. Konald H. Beattie, Chief of the 
Bureau of Criminal Statistics, submitted the following statement on 
this subject : 

"Under the Criminal Statistics Act,"'' the Bureau of Criminal 
Statistics under the Attorney General may request almost any type 
of information with respect to crime and delinquency from any of 
the public ofificials in the State concerned with this subject. Over 
the past 14 years of the bureau's existence, there has been de- 
veloped a collection of information on all adults arrested for 
felonies and their police dispositions. ]\Iore recently, data have 
been developed on juveniles arrested and their ])olice dispositions. 
These data are submitted in the form of monthly sununary reports 
by each law enforcement agency of the State. In addition, there 
has been developed a system of individual reports on each person 
prosecuted in the superior courts of the State, placed on probatioji 
by the superior courts, and each juvenile referred to probation 
departments and jnvenile courts. This has permitted a fairly com- 
prehensive picture of the number of persons involved in serious 
crime, and for those who are prosecuted on felony charges, the out- 
come in the superior courts. At the present time, there is almost no 
information reported or available concerning persons prosecuted in 
the municipal courts on misdemeanor charges or persons held in 
jail, either awaiting disposition or committed under sentence. 

"In order to take stejis to meet the need for information on local 
detention, an item for funds was placed in the "B" Section of 

•♦California Penal Code, Part 4, Title 3, Sections 13000-30. 


the bureau's budget for the fiscal year 1959-60, but this item was 
not granted. The request was repeated in the 1960-61 presentation 
of items to be included in the budget which will be submitted to the 
Legislature this spring. 

"While the Bureau of Criminal Statistics has the authority to 
request information regarding local detention, there is no point 
or purpose in attempting to do so until a staff is available to 
process, compile, and analyze the information reported. This was 
the reason for the request in the last general budget session and 
in the current budget session. If the present request to establish a 
section in the bureau to develop local detention information on 
both adult aud juvenile criminal offenders is approved, efforts will 
immediately be made to evolve a reporting system which will give 
information on persons booked into jails, jail camps, and local 
juvenile facilities. If accurate data are to be developed regarding 
exactly what happens in these situations, it will require reporting 
on an individual case basis. This will provide data relating to the 
persons involved — age, sex, race, offense — as well as the specific 
data relating to the time held, the reason and circumstances of 

"Whether or not such a reporting plan would attempt to cover 
all persons booked for criminal offenses is a question for further 
consideration. Certainly, it should cover all persons booked into 
county jails. The use of city jails involves so many very short-term 
commitments for such offenses as drunkenness, vagrancy, and dis- 
orderly conduct, that the effort to develop detailed information 
on them would not seem to be commensurate with the value that 
might be received. 

' ' The total crime picture in California now involves reports from 
400 independent law enforcement agencies, besides 58 (each) 
county prosecuting agencies, superior courts, and probation offices, 
as well as county jails. At the present time there is no information 
available from the several hundred municipal and justice courts. 
In order to obtain complete information, at least in those areas of 
crimes against the person and property, which should be the sub- 
ject of extensive knowledge, there must be developed some method 
of obtaining data from the municipal courts as to what has hap- 
pened to individual persons charged with such offenses. 

' ' One proposal which should be given careful consideration is to 
require that a transcript of the disposition of every person prose- 
cuted in a municipal or justice court be sent to the state identifi- 
cation and statistical bureaus, with a coj^y to the original arresting 
agency. Otherwise, the record of what happened to persons arrested 
and charged with offenses is never clear. A requirement of tran- 
scripts from the inferior courts has already been established by 
the Legislature, in connection Avith traffic offenses. Transcripts of 
such offenses are now forwarded to the Department of Motor Ve- 
hicles for their records. From the standpoint of public joolicy, it 
seems equally, if not more important, to require that the outcome 
of criminal cases be reported to those agencies which have the 
criminal records beginning with the arrest and charge of each 
person who is brought before these courts. If such a requirement 


were made, one of the very important items that should be incor- 
porated in the information supplied is the local or state identifica- 
tion number of each person involved. Otherwise, it would be very 
difficult to determine witli certainty Avhether the person reported 
as prosecuted and disposed of in court was identical with the per- 
son whose arrest record was on file with the local law enforcement 
agency and the state identification bureau. ' ' ^^ 

Apparently no legislation is required to collect statistical informa- 
tion regarding local detention practices. This committee believes that 
it would be to the advantage of the State for the Legislature to approve 
a budget item providing for the collection of such information by the 
Bureau of Criminal Statistics. We also recommend that a transcript 
showing the disposition of every person prosecuted in a municipal or 
justice court be sent to the Bureau of Criminal Identification and 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 

850. A justice of the supreme court, or 850. A telegraphic copy of a warrant 
a judRe of a .superior court, may, may be sent by telegraph or tcle- 

by an indorsement under his hand type to one or more peace officers, 

upon a warrant of arrest, authorize and such copy is as effectual in 

the service thereof by telegraph, the hands of any officer, and he 

and thereafter a telegraphic copy must proceed in the .same manner 

of sudi warrant may be sent by under it as though he held the orig- 

telegraph to one or more peace inal warrant issued by a magis- 

officers, and such copy is as ef- trate. 

fectual in the hands of any officer, 
and he must proceed in the same 
manner under it as Ihnugli lie held 
an original warrant issued by the 
magistrate making the indorsement. 

Section 850 

This change is one which simplifies the sending of a warrant by 
telegraph or teletype. Tlie committee knows of no objection to this 

SECTION 851.5 ADDED IN 1959 
Section 851.5. (Right of person arrested to make at least one telephone call com- 
pleted to his attorney, employer, or a relative : Deprivation of rights 
granted l)y section: Penalty.) 

(a) Any person arrested has, immediately after he is booked, the 
right to make, at his own expense, in the presence of a public 
officer or employee, at least one telephone call from the police 
station or other place at which lie is booked, completed to the 
person calh'd. who may be his attorney, employer, or a relative. 
(I)) Any pni)]ic officer or employer who deprives an arrested per- 
.son of the rights granted bv this section is guilty of a mis- 
(i.'ineanor. (Added l)y Stats. 11)59, ch. 1HG2, § 1.) 

Section 851.5 

Although this section was not a part of the 1957 legislation, but was 
addi'd in lf)59, we are including it because it is an important one and 
(•l().s(^ly related to some of the sections under consideration. 

This section, as originally proposed, provided for one completed call 
at no expense to the arrested person. However, many objections were 

" statement submitted to committee by Mr. Ronald H. Beattle, Chief of the Bureau of 
Criminal Statistics. 


made on the ground that the cost would be prohibitive. The committee 
heard the following- testimony on this point: 

Q. "You probably recall that the original bill did not have the 
provisions that the arrested person — and many police chiefs, in 
fact one in particular, said this was going to run into millions of 
dollars. I disputed, and T think the majority of the members of 
the Committee disputed, but this was what we were confronted 
with and they had the statistics and we couldn't disprove it. 

A. ". . .1 don't want the Committee to be misled, but there 
is only a small percentage of people that are arrested and taken 
into custody that have an interest for making a phone call, . . . 
in order to contact an attorney or contact an employer or contact 
a friend. "^^ 

The committee asked the Los Angeles Police Department how much 
their budget had to be augmented because of the adoption of Section 
851.5 and we were informed that the expense to the city had been 
reduced : 

"Your question concerning the size of the budget item neces- 
sary to maintain the policy of allowing one completed phone call 
to each person booked cannot be directly answered in terms of 
dollars and cents. However, by an analysis of the procedural 
changes brought about by the phone call policy, perhaps you will 
be able to estimate the figure in which you are interested. 

"Prior to the adoption of the present policy, the Los Angeles 
Police Department completed one phone call for each prisoner at 
city expense, exercising the degree of control necessary in order to 
prevent prisoners from establishing alibis, warning their accom- 
plices, etc. When the change in the law made a completed phone 
call a matter of right for each prisoner, pay telephones were in- 
stalled at each city jail facility. Since that time, the number of 
calls made at city expense has been reduced to include only those 
calls for prisoners who have not had enough money to place their 
own call. As a result, the expense to the city has been reduced 
by the operation of the new policy. It is not known to what 
degree this expense has been reduced as there are no separate 
records for expense of these phone calls as opposed to other phone 
calls for city business. 

"The expense for rental of the pay telephone from October, 
1959, through May 15, 1960, amounted to $300, while gross re- 
ceipts from the paid calls were $504. So it would appear that the 
new policy has saved money for the city rather than created an 
additional expense. 

"We trust this information will be sufficient for your needs. "^'^ 

Not all police departments followed the Los Angeles policy before 
1959 with regard to telephone calls. Apparently not all of them today 

^ Testimony of Edward T. Mancuso, Public Defender, City and County of San Fran- 
cisco, at Sacramento liearing. 

*' Letter from City of Los Angeles, Cliief of Police, W. H. Parker, by Thomas Reddin, 
Deputy Chief Commander, Bureau of Corrections, June 23, I960, to Assembly 
Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure. 


follow the requirements of Section 851.5, for reasons unconnected witli 
the expense involved : 

"... One excuse after another is heing used to prevent a 
liberal interpretation of this section, such as, the lines are all busy 
or that they have no change, or in the case where they take the 
money away from the person in custody. Since there is no money 
on the person or the individual, they cannot make any call. The 
riglit of a person taken into custody to telephone for the 
of contacting an attorney or his employer, or a member of his 
family is, in our opinion, one of the rights that should be guarded 
and protected by this committee, wherever possible. "We believe that 
this section .should be restudied, that the person taken into custody 
should be allowed more than one completed call, together with 
the fact that the words 'at his own expense' must, under all 
circumstances, be deleted from this section. The legislation, as it 
now stands, in the statute books, might just as well not be there, 
as it is not accomplishing the purpose for which it was intended, 
nor are the people being taken into custody being given the 
opportunity of making contact with an attorney, their employer, 
or their famil}', which was the original intention of the legislation. 

"... The only qu(\stion was that in cross-examining the three 
deputies that handled these problems . , . they were all unani- 
mous in the fact that they had and do continuously receive com- 
plaints that they haven't been able to make telephone calls. "^^ 

The committee recommends that the section be amended to delete the 
words, *at his own expense.' It would seem reasonable to allow the 
police to charge .such toll against any money in possession of the per- 
son at the time of arrest, but no per.son should be prevented from 
contacting an attorney, relative, or friend for lack of funds. 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 

1524. It may be Lssued upon either of l.">24. A .search warrant may be is- 
the following grounds : sued upon any of the following 

grounds : 

1. "When the property was stolen 1. When the property was stolen 
or embezzled ; in which case it or embezzled. 

may be taken on the warrant 
from any place in which it is 
concealed, or from the posses- 
sion of the person by whom it 
was stolen or embezzled, or 
from any person in whose pos- 
session it may be. 

2. Wlien it was used as the means 2. When the property or things 
of committing a felony; in were used as a means of com- 
which case it may be taken on mitting a felony. 

the warrant from the place in 
which it is concealed, or from 
the possession of the person 
by whom it was used in the 
commission of the offense, or 
from any person in whose pos- 
session it may be. 

w Testimony of EfUvard T. Mancuso, Public Defender, City and County of San Fran- 
cisfo. at Sacramento hearing. 




AFTER 1957 
n. When the property or thin^ 
are in the possession of any 
person with the intent to use 
it as a means of committing a 
public offense, or in the pos- 
session of another to whom he 
may have delivered it for the 
purpose of coneealins: it or pre- 
venting its being discovered. 

BEFORE 1957 

3. When it is in the possession 
of any person with the intent 
to use it as a means of com- 
mitting a public offense, or in 
the possession of another to 
whom he may have delivered 
it for the purpose of conceal- 
ing it or preventing its being 
discovered ; in which case it 
may be taken on the warrant 
from such person, or from any 
place occupied by him. or un- 
der his control, or from the 
possession of the person to 
whom he may have so de- 
livered it. 

4. When the property is a cask, 
keg. bottle, vessel, siphon, can. 
case, or other package, bear- 
ing printed, branded, stamped, 
engraved, etched, blown, or 
otherwise attached or produced 
thereon the duly filed trade- 
mark or name of the person by 
whom. or in whose behalf, the 
search warrant is applied for. 
in the possession of any person 
except the owner thereof, with 
intent to sell or traffic in the 
same, or refill the same with 
intent to defraud the owner 
thereof, with such intent, and 
without such owner's consent 
thereto, or unless the same 
shall have been purchased 
from the owner thereof ; in 
which case it may be taken on 
the warrant from such person, 
or from any place occupied by 
him, or under his control, or 
from the possession of the per- 
son to whom he may have de- 
livered it. 

Section 1524 

The Legislative Counsel describes the changes made iu this section 
as follows : 

"The cases relating to the section prior to the 1957 amendment 
indicated that the courts would not enlarge the classes of prop- 
ertr for which a warrant could be issued (see People v. Ciirono. 
46"Cal. 2d 2S8; Stern v. Superior Court, 76 Cal. App. 2d 772). 
The 1957 amendment added a new class (4), to wit. '"When the 
property or things to be seized consist of any item or constitutes 
any evidence which tends to show that a particular person has 
committed a f elouv. ' . . . " ^^ 

When the property or things 
to be seized consist of any 
item or constitutes any evi- 
dence which tends to show a 
felony has been committed, or 
tends to show that a particu- 
lar person has committed a 

The property or things de- 
scribed in this section may be 
taken on the warrant from any 
place, or from any person in 
whose possession it may be. 

'Legislative Counsel Opinion No. 1012, Feb. 3, 1958. 


The committee has heard testimony from only one witness on this 
section as amended in 1957. District Attorney Thomas C. Lynch of 
San Francisco expressed his approval as follows: 

Q. "... I would assume then that you are generally satisfied by 
the changes made by the legislature in the laws of arrest in 1957 ? 

A. "That is correct, and most particularly with one subject that 
has not even been discussed and that is the law on search warrants. 

Q. "We did broaden the law . . . 

A. "That is right. 

Q. ". . . giving law enforcement authorities the power to ob- 
tain warrants where thej^ otherwise . . . 

A. "I think the most important change, Mr. O'Connell, was 
that as it was we could only look for a bottle, a keg, or a siphon and 
a few archaic things in the old days and now we can look for evi- 
dence which answers the question of the general public every time 
we appear looking for evidence, 'why don't you go and get a search 
warrant?' Well, we couldn't in the old days. Now we can and I 
think as peace officers realize the possibility of the application of 
the new section that you will find a much more extensive use 
of search warrants."''*' 


BEFORE 1957 AFTER 1957 

1526. The magistrate must, before is- 1526. The magistrate may, before issu- 
suing the warrant, examine on ing the warrant, examine on 

oath the comphainant, and any oath the person seeking the war- 

witnesses he may produce, and rant and any witnesses he may 

take their depositions in writing, produce, and must take his affi- 

and cause them to be subscribed davit or their affidavits in writ- 

by the parties making them. ing, and cause same to be sub- 

scribed by the party or parties 
making same. 

Section 7526 
The Legislative Counsel's analysis of the 1957 changes in this section 

states : 

"Section 1526 of the Penal Code, relating to procedure prior to 
issuance of a search warrant, was amended by Chapter 1882, Stat- 
utes of 1957. The amendment made it permissive, rather than 
mandatory, that a magistrate, before issuing a warrant, examine 
on oath the person seeking the warrant and any witnesses he may 
produce. The amendment further modified the section by substi- 
tuting 'affidavit' for 'deposition' in the provision recpiiring the 
magistrate to take the deposition of the complainant and the 
depositions of such witnesses as he may produce. This does not 
appear to be a substantive change, as, prior to the 1957 amend- 
ment, issuance of a search warrant on an officer's affidavit was 
sanctioned by the courts (see People v. Acosta, 142 Cal. App. 2d 
59; Modern Loan Co. v. Police Court, 12 Cal. App. 582). The 
amendment of the section to refer to 'person seeking the warrant,' 
rather than 'complainant' appears to be nonsubstantive in char- 
acter. "«i 
The committee has heard no objoetioiis to this section as it now stands. 

•• Testimony of District Attorney Thomas C. Lynch, at San Krancisco hearing. 
» Legrlslatlve Counsel Opinion No. 1012, Feb. 3, 1958. 




The committee finds that the employment application form used by 
the California State Personnel Board at the present time asks : 

"9a. Have you as a juvenile or adult ever been detained by law 
enforcement officers, or arrested, or convicted of any offense other 
than traffic violations?" 


The committee reconimcncU that it be made unlawful for any em- 
ployment application form used by the State of California to ask 
whether the applicant has ever been detained or arrested. We believe 
that forms of this type should inquire only as to convictions. 


The committee finds that hundreds of persons are arrested and re- 
leased in California every year without a complaint ever having been 
filed against them. Each of these persons acquires a permanent arrest 
record which presents a serious handicap to his prospects of employ- 


The committee recommends : 

A. That the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Train- 
ing place special emphasis in its training program upon the neces- 
sity to establish probable cause before making an arrest. 

B. That a transcript showing the disposition of every person 
prosecuted in a municipal court be sent to the Bureau of Criminal 
Identification and Investigation. 

C. That in those arrests which do not reach court, and where 
a record of the arrest was sent to the CII or FBI, the arresting 
agency shall forward the disposition to the same agency. 

D. That the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investiga- 
tion define uniform categories to be used by reporting agencies 
throughout the State in showing dispositions on arrest records in 
those cases in which the arrest does not result in a conviction. 


The committee finels that there is no law prohibiting the disclosure 
of arrest records to other than law enforcement agencies. 




We recommend that legislation be enacted prohibiting the divnl- 
gence of records of arrest to any person other than a bona fide law 
enforcement officer. 


Statistics compiled by the Department of Jnstice show that 80,661 
felony arrests were reported to the Bnrean of Criminal Identification 
and Investigation in 1959. Of these 23,;}63, or 29 percent, were released. 
Com])aral)le figures for misdemeanor arrests are not available bnt it 
seems reasonable to assnme that the number of such arrests foUoAved 
by release is substantial.^ 

From the above figures it can readily be seen that thousands of Cali- 
fornians who have never been convicted of a crime have permanent 
arrest records on file with the Bureau of Criminal Identification and 
Investigation and, also, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 
These records cover eases ranging from mistaken identity - to cases 
in which a conviction was impossible because of some factor such as the 
death of the complaining witness. The problems created for an arrested 
person at either end of this scale are much the same. 

The most important result of such an arrest record appears to be 
financial. For some time legislators have received complaints from 
persons who have either lost jobs or been unable to obtain employ- 
ment because of an arrest record. As a result of such letters A.B. 2016 
was introduced during the 1959 Session of the Legislature by Assem- 
blymen John A. 'Council and William Munnell. The provisions of 
the bill were summarized as follows bj^ the Legislative Counsel: 

"Provides that upon the determination of a criminal action or 
proceeding against a person, in his favor, his photographs, finger- 
print impressions, and records of arrest, made by direction of the 
police after the arrest giving rise to the action or proceeding, or 
made during pendency of same, and copies thereof, shall be 
returned to him on demand. Makes failure to comply with demand 
a misdemeanor." 

A.B. 2016 ran into strong opposition from law enforcement organiza- 
tions and Mas referred to this committee for interim study. We have 
asked for information and advice from jurisdictions which use such 
a rule and we have taken testimony from interested witnesses at a 
hearing in Los Angeles on November 12, 1959. 

This committee did not have enough staff or budget to allow a thor- 
ough search to determine how many states or countries allow the 
destruction of records of arrests which do not result in conviction. 
From readily availabl(> materials we learned that the states of IMiclii- 
gan, Illinois, New York, and Ohio have some jirovision for expunging 
such records. Most Australian states either have such a legislative 
provision or follow the practice of expunging such records upon re- 
quest. England has such legislation and strictlj'- adheres to it. 

Following is a brief description of these provisions and modifications 
to date : 

1 For one Indication of the misdemeanor release picture, see Appendix G. 
' See Appendix H for one of a number of mistal<en Identity cases coming: to the at- 
tention of the committee as described In a UPI release of September 25, 1959. 


New York 

Section 944 of the Code of Criminal Procedure derives from former 
Section 622 of the Correction Law. Section 622 of the Correction Law 
was amended by Laws of 1929, Chapter 243 and the subject matter of 
that section was contained in former Prison Law, Section 32, as added 
by Laws of 1926, Chapter 702. 

"Section 944. 

Upon the determination of a pending criminal action or pro- 
ceeding against a person, in favor of such person (unless another 
criminal action or proceeding is pending against him or her or 
unless such person has previously been convicted in this State of 
a crime or of the otfense of disorderly conduct or of being a 
vagrant or disorderly person or has previously been convicted 
elsewhere of any crime or offense which would be deemed a crime 
or the offense of disorderly conduct, vagrancy or being a dis- 
orderly person if committeed within the State), his or her photo- 
graph, photographic plate or proof, fingerprint impressions, photo- 
graphic copy or photographic plate taken or made while such 
action or proceeding is pending by direction or authority of any 
police officer, sheriff, peace officer, or any member of any police 
department, and all duplicates and copies made thereof during 
such action or proceeding, shall be returned on demand to such 
person by the police ofBcer, sheriff, peace officer or any member 
of any police department, having any such photograph, and finger- 
prints, photographic plate or proof, copy or duplicates in his 
possession, or under his control, and such police officer, sheriff, 
peace ofScer or member of police department failing to comply 
with the requirements hereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 
Added L. 1958, c. 881, § 3 ; amended L. 1959, c. 647, § 1, eff. Jan. 

The language within parentheses was added during the 1959 Session 
at the request of law enforcement agencies. 


Until Act 92 of the Public Acts of 1958, an arrested person who was 
discharged without a warrant being issued or a defendant who was 
acquitted was entitled to his arrest records back upon application to 
the appropriate court. Many members of the bar felt that this was 
an unfair procedure in that it penalized those who were in ignorance 
of the law. As a result, the above-mentioned act was passed, requiring 
the mandatory return of all fingerprint cards and arrest records where 
the person arrested was not brought to trial, or if brought to trial, was 

The Attorney General of Michigan commented on the adoption of Act 
92 as follows : 

"The principal objection of the police to this bill has been that 
it is often difficult to find the person to return his records to him, 
and that it puts an undue burden on the police ofKcials to have 
to track down such persons in order to return their records. It 
has been recommended, therefore, by such police officials that the 


statute provide for destruction of the records in lieu of actually 
returning: them to the persons involved. 

"In addition, the police have complained that the purpose of 
the act is defeated by requiring return of records where a person 
already has a prior conviction and that as a result such cases 
should be the exception to the statute. This office is not necessarily 
in accord with this particular objection. 

"Police officials have also been concerned in cases involving in- 
decent liberties and other sexually motivated crimes because of 
the fact that they feel it is necessary to have a record in such 
cases for future use. They further point out that in such cases 
the complainant often will refuse to prosecute because of the em- 
barrassment involved, and the accused may then go free without 
any record of his activities for future reference. This office is 
not necessarily in accord with this objection either, although we 
do feel that in exceptional cases the law should possibly contain 
a provision alloAving the prosecuting authorities to petition the 
court for the purpose of not having to return the records. 

"Enclosed herein find Enrolled Senate Bill No. 1107, which 
has passed both houses of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, 
and is now on the Governor's desk aAvaiting his decision as to 
whether or not it should be vetoed. This bill sets forth the present 
law in the State of ]\Iichigan with the exception of the last para- 
graph which has been added at the request of police authorities. 
As you will note, it eliminates two of the objections of police 
authorities to the bill, as set forth above. There is some question 
at the present time as to whether or not the Governor will veto 
this amendment." ' 

The last paragraph of Senate Bill No. 1107 is as follows: 

"The provisions of this section requiring the return of the fin- 
gerprints, arrest card and description shall not apply (1) where 
the person arrested has any prior conviction excepting misde- 
meanor traffic offenses or (2) where the person arrested was 
charged with the commission or attempted commission, with or 
against a child under the age of 16 years, of the crime of rape, 
sodomy, gross indecency, or indecent liberties unless a judge of 
any court of record, excepting the probate court, by express order 
entered of record, orders the return." 

The Attorney General does not comment upon another rather exten- 
sive change made by the bill. On line 6 of Section 3 the bill adds a re- 
quirement that records of arrest be forwarded immediately upon arrest 
not only to the state identification bureau but also to the Federal Bu- 
reau of Investigation. In the 1958 measure these records were for- 
warded to the FBI only after conviction. Since these records cannot 
be recalled by state action, this provision would mean that even in 
those cases in which local records were returned or destroyed, they 
could be replaced at any time from the files of the FBI. 

•Letter from the Attorney General of Michigan, August 4, 1959. (The bill was signe'l 
by the Governor.) 



Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code and Service, v. 6, Bureau of Criminal 
Identification and Investigation. 5149.05 : 

"Upon a nolle prosequi being entered under provisions of for- 
mer Sec. 2919, any photographs, pictures, descriptions, finger- 
prints, measurements and such other information as may be perti- 
nent, taken by virtue of this section of an accused who is not a 
well-known and habitual criminal, or who is not confined in any 
workhouse, jail, reformatory or penitentiary, for the violation of 
state laws, shall be given to the accused upon his request. 1927 

In regard to the above provision, Mr. John L. Francis, Director, 
Legal Aid Defender Society of Columbus, Ohio, says : 

" ... In practice it has been our observation that fingerprints 
and photographs are nevertheless taken by local police depart- 
ments of any person being arrested or booked for anj^ offense, 
whether a misdemeanor or felony. It has been our experience that 
where the defend ent is found not guilty after trial that these 
fingerprints are not usually returned. In a case where a man has 
been held for investigation, it has been our observation that the 
prints are returned upon request . . . our Statute does not refer 
to duplicates nor does it refer to prints which have been for- 
warded to other agencies. We suspect that even though finger- 
prints are returned to the Defendant that there is nevertheless a 
copy retained in the files of the police department or some copies 
may have been forwarded to other agencies which copies are not 
returned. ' ' * 


"All photographs, fingerprints or other records of identifica- 
tion so taken shall, upon the acquittal of the person charged with 
the crime, or upon his being released, without being convicted, 
be returned to him." (111. Rev. Stats. 1957, chapter 38, par. 780e, 
Sec. 5:) 

"... Illinois has recognized and given effect to concept of right 
of privacy . . . Judicial notice would be taken that records of 
identification of persons arrested, retained by police department 
of Chicago after their acquittal or release without conviction, are 
not open to general public. . . . 

"In absence of a specific mandate of legislature ordering return 
to an arrested person all records of identification held by sheriffs 
or police departments, sheriffs and police departments may retain 
in their files records of identification recorded upon arrest, after 
acquittal of arrested persons or their release without conviction 
for purpose of exhibiting such records to victims of crime in 
order to enable them to make an identification, such records other- 
wise not being open to the general public, and rights of privacy 
are not thereby violated." (Morris Kolh ct al v. Timothy J. O'Con- 

* Letter from John L. Francis, Director, Legal Aid Defender Society, Columbus 15, 
Ohio, dated August 3, 1959. 


nor, Com. of Police, July 18, 1957, Illinois Appellate Court Re- 
ports 14 2d Series, 1957.) 

The effect of this ruling is to limit the apiilieation of the statute to 
the State Bureau of Criminal Identification. 

Nev/ Jersey 

The New Jersey statute requirinp: police authorities to take finger- 
prints and i^liotograplis of arrested persons and forward them to a 
central identification bureau was tested in 1945 in the Court of Chan- 
cery of New Jersey. (137 N.J. Eq. 24.) The following are excerpts from 
the opinion of the court : 

"Equity will intervene to protect the right of privacy . . . The 
'riglit of privacy' is the right of an individual to be free from 
unwarranted publicity, or, in other words, to be protected from 
any wrongful intrusion into his private life which would outrage 
or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of 
ordinary sensibilities . . . The right of privacy is one of the 
'natural and unalienable rights' recognized by the Constitution 
and no authority has the power to change or abolish it . . . There 
is no justification for the taking of fingerprints, photographs, and 
other measurements in advance of conviction except where the 
sole purpose to be served is to identify accused as the person 
charged with the offense for which he is taken into custody or 
for the purpose of using them to facilitate the recapture of ac- 
cused who becomes a fugitive . . . The statute requiring the dis- 
semination of ]ihotogra]ihs and fingerprints of divers persons is 
uuconKtitutional as applied to persons not convicted of indictable 
offense and not fugitives from justice." 

This opinion was upheld upon appeal to the Court of Errors and 
Appeals of New Jersey', January, 1946. IIoAvever, Avhen related cases 
on the same question were heard in the Court of Chancery in 1947, the 
court said : 

"... the statute in question is within the proper exercise of 
the police ])owers of the State for the purpose of facilitating crime 
detection and punishment in the interest of society generally and 
that one who has been indicted must submit to such slight inva- 
sion of his claimed right of privacy as may accompany the per- 
formance of the police duty required by the statute . . . 

"... the charge against him had been presented to the grand 
jury and no indictment was found, whereupon he sought to coin- 
pel the ])()li('e to surrender his photograph, fingerprints and meas- 
urements. This court declined to grant liim the relief sought . . . 
in the case of one Avho had been cleared of a false charge, the dis- 
cretion as to whether the ])olice should destroy his fingerprints 
and photographs rested with the police and not Avith the court." 
(McOovern v. Van Biper et al.; O'Brien et al v. McGovern; 
Jenkins et al. v. Same; Anzer et al. v. Same. 54 AR2d 469.) 

These cases were all considcu-ed in one ()])ini()n as they rested upon 
the same defense on the same (piestion. 



The Australian practice was outlined for the committee by the Aus- 
tralian Attorney-General's office: 

''(1) Queensland: Section 43 of the Vagrants, Gaming and 
other Offenses Act, 1931-1958 provides — 

"Where a person has been arrested on any charge in respect 
of which a person may be arrested under this Act, or is in lawful 
custody for any offence, punishable on indictment pursuant to 
'The Criminal Code,' the officer in charge of police at the police 
station to which he is taken after arrest or where he is in custody, 
as the case may be, may take or cause to be taken all such par- 
ticulars as may be deemed necessary for the identification of such 
person, including his photograph and finger prints : 

"Provided that if such person as aforesaid is found not guilty 
or is not proceeded against, any finger prints or photographs taken 
in pursuance of the provisions of this section shall be destroyed 
in the presence of the said person so concerned." 

"(2) Western Australia: Regulation 105 of the Regulations 
and Instructions for the Government and Guidance of the Police 
of Western Australia provides — 

"Every prisoner shall submit himself or herself to be photo- 
graphed, and to have the prints of his or her fingers, measurements, 
and other particulars taken and recorded on reception and dis- 
charge; and also at any other time when ordered by the Comptrol- 
ler General of Prisons. Any photograph or finger prints taken of 
any person under remand or committed for trial, who shall not 
be ultimately convicted, shall with the plates, be destroyed and 
not recorded." 

"In practice the records referred to are destroyed in the pres- 
ence of the person acquitted on his application. If no such applica- 
tion is received the records are automatically destroyed after a 
lapse of a period of three months. 

" (3) New South Wales: There is no legislative provision for the 
destruction of fingerprints or other records in the event of a 
charge not being sustained against a person. Any decision to de- 
stroy such records is solely in the discretion of the Commissioner 
of Police and action is taken only when representation is made by 
the person charged. Such cases are rare. 

"(4) Victoria: No legislative provisions exist. All records are 
retained unless the person acquitted makes application for their 
destruction in which case they are destroyed in the applicant's 

" (5) South Australia: No legislative provisions exist, the prac- 
tice is to destroy fingerprints and photographs on the application 
of the person acquitted. 

"(6) Tasmania: No legislative provision exists, nor has any 
person applied to have such records destroyed. It has been indi- 
cated, however, that such an application would in all probability 
be complied with. 


"It is difficult to assess the effect of the destruction of police 
records on the work of the police in view of the fact that, with the 
exception of Western Australia, their destruction is dependent on 
the application of the person acquitted, and the actual number of 
applications received in various states has apparently been negli- 


"All police forces in Great Britain must send to the Criminal 
Record Office the fingerprints of every person sentenced to im- 
prisonment for serious crime . . . The fingerprinting and photo- 
graphing of prisoners is usually done in prison. In England, Wales, 
and Northern Ireland the fingerprints of an arrested person can- 
not be taken without his consent until he has been sentenced to 
imprisonment or remanded for a further hearing (in the latter case 
the court's permission must be obtained)." {The Police in Britain. 
Central Office of Information. II. M. Stationery Office, London. 
Chapter V. ) 

In response to an inquiry from this committee, the Home Office de- 
scribed the English practice as follows : 

' ' It may be helpful if I first described the circumstances in which 
in England and Wales the fingerprints may be taken of a person 
wlio is in custody and charged with an offence or who has been 
sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The statutory provisions are 
as follows : — 

"1. Under Regulations made by the Secretary of State (i.e. 
tlie Home Secretary) prison governors are required to cause the 
fingerprints to be taken of all persons sentenced to a term of im- 
prisonment on conviction of any one of the more serious indictable 
offences and for them to be forwarded to the Central Criminal 
Record Office, New Scotland Yard. The prescribed offences, which 
are known as the 'fingerprintable oft'ences, ' cannot be varied with- 
out the express approval of the Secretary of State. 

"2. Under Section 40 of the Magistrates' Court Act, 1952, 
whicli enables the police to apply to a magistrate for an order 
to be made enabling them to take the fingerprints of a person in 
custody and charged with an offence. A copy of Section 40 of the 
Magistrates' Court Act, 1952 is attached together with an extract 
from a home office circular to clerks of justices explaining 
the purpose of tiiis section of the Act." In advising chief constables 
on the application of Section 40 of the 19.32 Act, the Home Office 
has said that it is important that the spirit as well as the letter 
of the statutory provision should be observed and that no person 
who would otherwise have been dealt with by summons should be 
taken into custody merely because it is desired to obtain his finger- 
prints. You will notice that subsection (4) of Section 40 requires 
that fingerprints taken by order of a Court under the section and 
all copies and records thereof, shall be destroyed if the person is 

"Letter received by committee from Australian Consulate-General, 153 Kearny Stroet, 

San Francisco 4, California, 4th March 1960. 
* See Appendix I. 


acquitted, or the justices determine not to commit him for trial, 
or the information against liim is dismissed. 

'*3. The fingerprints of a person remanded in custody may 
be obtained on application by an officer not below the rank of 
Superintendent to the Prison Governor. In the case of a refusal 
in prison, the application form must be signed by a Justice of the 
Peace. (Regulations made under Section 8 of the Penal Servitude 
1891, now embodied in Section 16 of the Prisons Act, 1952). 

"Fingerprints are also taken by the police from persons who 
are in custody and charged with an offense provided they con- 
sent to having their fingerprints taken. The police procedure in 
England and Wales for obtaining fingerprints by consent is not 
covered by statutory provision and may vary in detail from force 
to force. It can be exemplified, however, by the procedure of the 
Metropolitan Police which is generally similar to that followed 
by the provincial police forces. The procedure of the Metropolitan 
police is as follows : 

"Provided they consent, the fingerprints of the following per- 
sons may be taken : 

(i) Persons in custody for any of the more serious offences for 
which a convicted person would be fingerprinted in prison. 

(ii) Aliens charged with an offence, 
(iii) Prostitutes charged wnth ^soliciting, behaving in a riotous 

or indecent manner, 
(iv) Any unknown person who is charged with committing an 
offence which is not one of the ' fingerprintable offences' and 
there is reason to suspect that he has previously been con- 

"Any person whose fingerprints it is proposed to take is noti- 
fied of his right to object and if he does object, his fingerprints 
are not to be taken. In any case where the charge against a per- 
son who has consented to the police taking his fingerprints is sub- 
sequently dismissed or if he is found not guilty, by a court, all 
records and fingerprints are destroyed. 

"It will be seen that it is a well-established principle in this 
country that where the police have obtained the fingerprints of 
a person who has not been convicted of an offence or who is 
acquitted by a court, the fingerprints of the person and all records 
of the case are destroyed. If it is so desired, this will be done in 
the presence of the accused person. This, of course, would also 
apply to fingerprints taken for elimination purposes. 

"There is no evidence that the destruction of these records 
causes any administrative difficulty or that it involves additional 
expenditure.^ There may, of course, be occasions when the de- 
teciion of crime would be greatly facilitated by the retention of 
the fingerprints of all persons who have been charged with an 
offence, but there is considerable public sentiment in this country 
against fingerprinting of unconvicted persons and there is no 

It might be well to point out that the English have very few cases in which persons 
are arrested but not prosecuted. They apparently follow the practice of making 
a thorough investigation before making an arrest. See "Criminal Statistics," 
Home Office, London. 

3— L-2142 


reason to suppose that the police are seriously embarrassed by the 
destruction of those records. . . . "^ 


Tliis coiiiinittce asked the Attorney General's Office to outline the 
California practice with re^jard to tinji('rprintin<2: and pliotographiug 
arrested persons : 

"When one is arrested and booked on a felony or high-grade 
misdemeanor charge, his fingerprints, and often his photograpli. 
•will be taken, and copies sent to the Federal Bureau of Investiga- 
tion in AVashington, D.C., and to the State Bureau of Criminal 
Identification and Investigation at Sacramento . . . When finger- 
prints are forwarded to the bureau, such action Ls normally taken 
innnediately after the arrest, in order that pertinent information 
to the Svants' for other offenses, or i)ast arrests for the same type 
of offense, or prior convictions, may be forwarded to the author- 

"... there is a very serious question as to the power of the 
State to request the return of these records from the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation."^ 

This committee held a one-day hearing on this su])ject in Los An- 
geles on November V2, 1950. One question put to the witnesses was, 
"What economic handicap does an applicant for employment face 
if he has an an-est record f" The testimony, with very few exceptions, 
was in general agreement with the comments made by District Attorney 
William McKesson : 

"... There is a very real handicap to an a})plicant for employ- 
ment by the existence of an arrest record. I certainly would never 
(piestion that statement, l^onding companies frequently refuse to 
write surety bonds wiicre such an arrest record is found and this 
may ])rec]ude the arrestee from obtaining employment where a 
surety bond is a necessary prerequisite to obtaining the job. An 
employer may refuse to employ a person where the information 
of a prior arrest is uncovered. Many large employers cannot make 
their determination on an individual employee basis — that's one 
of the penalties we pay for growing so big. They adopt a general 
policy on this matter which requires rejection of any employee 
having an arrest record regardless of what happened after the 
])ros]iective emj^loyee was arrested; whether he was dismissed by 
the police, or dismissed by a court, or acquitted by a jury or a 
court. In my opinion, this is manifestly unfair. IIow can we 
honestly contend that a person is presumed to be innocent until 
he is proven guilty, and then have that person discriminated 
against by an employer merely because the person is arrested and 
charged with an offense? ..." 

Although the witnesses who testified before the eonnnittee on this 
subject generally agreed as to the nature of the probh'm, tlicy ottered 

' Letter received by committee from P. N. "Woodward, Home Office, Whitehall, Lon- 
don, S.W.I., 20th October, 1959. 

•Letter received by committee from Raymond M. Monibolsse, Deputy Attorney Gen- 
eral, California, August 28, 1959. 


widely varied solutions. One approacli, offered by the City Attorney 
of Los Angeles, was to educate employers about the problem: 

"The hard core of the problem is, of course, the person whose 
life has been a thoroughly honest one, but who unfortunately, was 
arrested, rightfully or wrongfully, and now has to truthfully 
admit the fact of his arrest. Fortunately, most enlightened em- 
ploj^ers today, not only i^ermit an explanation of the arrest, but 
make inquiry into the background of such an event. Proof that 
it does not eliminate consideration may be found in the many 
positions of trust and responsibility held by persons today, who 
do have arrest records with law enforcement agencies. However, 
there are still certain employers who do not look beyond the 
affirmative admission by the applicant. It is submitted that the 
cure lies in educating the employer, not by making a secret of a 
person 's background. ' ' ^° 

On September 12, 1956, the Citizens Advisory Committee to the 
Attorney General on Crime Prevention issued a report on California 
jails which touched upon the problem of employer attitudes : 

"(c) It is recommended that a serious effort be made to rectify 
the present attitude of government, which is rejective of people 
with records who apply for employment in government. The fed- 
eral, state, county, municipal bodies generally refuse to employ 
such people. It is difficult to approach private enterprise with a 
program of enlightenment when government, which in one of its 
phases, has stamped the applicant with its approval, refuses to 
demonstrate the courage of its own convictions by hiring the 

"A stud}^ of government regulations should be made to arrive at 
the validity of such rejections. If they are found not to be valid 
an effort should be made to modify such rules." ^^ 

The present official application form used by the California State 
Personnel Board asks the following question with regard to arrests : 

"9A. Have you as a juvenile or adult, ever been detained by 
law enforcement officers, or arrested, or convicted of any offense, 
other than traffic violations?" 

This connnittee is of the opinion that questions of this type should 
inquire only as to convictions. After the committee hearing on arrest 
records, the Personnel Board submitted to us the following revision 
which they proposed to make to question 9A : 

"Have you ever been arrested, charged or held for any offense? 
(You need not include anything that happened before your 16th 
birthday or any traffic violations for which a fine of $25 or less 
was imposed.) " 

The staff of the Personnel Board explained that the above wording 
is based upon a similar question on the federal civil service application ■ 

1" statement of Roger Arnebergh, City Attorney of Los Angeles, Assembly Interim 
Committee on Criminal Procedure hearing, November 12, 1959. 

" Citizens Advisory Committee to the Attorney General on Crime Prevention. Califor- 
nia Jails : Report to Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of California. Septem- 
ber 12, 1956. 


form. We fail to see that there is any discernible difference between 
being detained and being held. 

This committee asked the Department of Employment whether their 
application forms asked any question regarding an arrest record. We 
received the following reply: 

"Pursuant to your request I am enclosing two sets of forms. 
One set of forms deals with applications for employment which 
are prepared by people avIio come to our offices. The other set of 
forms deals with claimants for unemployment insurance. In neither 
set of forms is any question asked about arrests or convictions. 

"You will note one exception, however, with respect to the 
form for Christmas employment in the Post Office Department. 
This form, in question 32, asks the question in which you are 
interested. This form is not a California Department of Employ- 
ment form, however, but a United States Government form which 
we sometimes pass out for the post office. ' ' ^^ 

The United States Post Office application form asks: 

"32. Have you ever been arrested, charged, or held by federal, 
state, or other law enforcement authorities for any violation of 
any federal law, state law, county or municipal law, regulation 
or ordinance? Do not include traffic violations for which a fine of 
$25 or less was imposed. All other charges must be included even 
■if they were dismissed. If answer is 'yes,' show on separate sheet 
for each case the approximate date, charge, place, action taken, 
and age at time of arrest. See warning below regarding falsifica- 
tion of application. ' ' ^^ 

Our information is that any applicant who answers this question in 
the affirmative is automatically disqualified because it is simpler and 
cheaper to hire an applicant without any record whatever than to 
investigate the circumstances of an arrest. 

The task of educating employers would require extensive efforts 
with respect to governmental entities, bonding corporations, semi- 
governmental employers such as defense industries, and many private 
corporations. This is a task beyond the purview of the California State 
Legislature. We recommend, however, that official state agencies limit 
their question on their subject to convictions. 

The approach embodied in A.B. 2016 was supported by several wit- 
nesses. One of these said : 

"I do know that police do the best jobs they can. I do know, 
under certain circumstances, records are good to keep, but why 
would they want records of people that are completely innocent 
and have so been proven innocent when they iiave those informal 
records? Why would they want them? Is it so they can harass them 
and maybe make the rest of their lives miserable? Why don't they 
give these people a chance, a chance to do something with their 
lives? Now my son was full of bitterness for a long time, most of 
it is gone — he still has some. However, he ... we were able to 

" Letter from IrvlnB H. Perluss, Director, Department of Employment, State of 
California, 800 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento 14, California, November 3, 1959. 

"Post Omce Department, Application for Chri.stmas Employment. POD form 1744, 
.Inly, r.t.'ifi. Our omphasis. 


help him overcome it and he does look forward to being able to 
help humanity in some way in the future, esi:)ecially those that 
were in the same position that lie was in. There are many ways, 
and you will hear many ways of perhaps expunging the records. 
One of them . . . might be . . . for the police not to release any 
record until after the case is determined — the determination of the 
case. Another one would be not to . . . that when a case is com- 
pleted and it is found that a person is innocent, and found so by 
law, the judge should immediately order all of the papers ex- 
punged. There 's no sense of torturing a person when it isn 't neces- 
sary. ' ' 14 

Another witness who favored this general approach was Edward 
T. Mancuso, Public Defender of San Francisco : 

"... We strongly urge this committee to give serious consider- 
ation to the introduction of legislation to provide that suspicion 
booking should never be made a matter of public record. 

Q. ". . . it's your opinion that these records should not be per- 
mitted to be forwarded until there's more of a find, at least until 
they are held to answer on a felony or something like that, is that 
your . . . 

A. ''There isn't any question about it. We've seen some very 
fine young men who have had records established against them 
. . . because of suspicion bookings or felony charges . . . never had 
any complaints charged against them. The charges were dismissed 
and nothing can be done about it. . . . Recently a lady that — ■ 
mother — wrote a letter to us and I sent a copy to your committee 
here, that just begs us to do something to get the record expunged. 
I took it all over, to the chief of police, and showed it to him 
and asked if anything could be done, and I don't know what fol- 
lowed after that. 

Q. "In other words, it would be your suggestion that the de- 
partment be required to communicate with CII, wanting to know 
if such and such a man is wanted elsewhere, but not to indicate 
any arrest record until there has been some disposition of the 
case, is that in essence your suggestion? 

A. "The suggestion would be the only fair solution . . ."^^ 

Witnesses who were connected with the enforcement of the law were 
inclined to agree with the approach suggested by George H. Brereton, 
Deputy Director of the Department of Justice : 

"... With reference to this particular question it would ap- 
pear to be far more practical, and valuable to any person who 
has been wrongfully accused, identified, or arrested, to establish 
some procedure whereby the 'disposition of the case' is placed on 
the record of an individual. Although in the Bureau of Criminal 
Identification and Investigation today we receive a great number 
of 'disposition of arrest' forms, for a variety of reasons, we do 
not receive the dispositions on all arrests and it is often necessary 

^* Testimony of witness at Los Angeles hearing, November 12, 1959. 
^ Testimony of Edward T. Mancuso, Public Defender of San Francisco, at Sacra- 
mento hearing, February 18-19, 1960. 

4— L-2142 


to teletype or write to police and sheriffs' departments or to dis- 
trict attorneys, conrt officials, or others in order to obtain, and 
place in tlie individual's record, the final disposition of the case 
upon which he or she was arrested. Although there would be some 
problems of accurately identifying the person referred to, some 
procedure which might make mandatory the reporting of the final 
dispositions of persons arrested; i.e., 'case dismissed for lack of 
evidence,' 'victim refuses to sign complaint,' 'case reduced to 
petty theft, etc.,' 'no complaint,' or 'case dismissed because sub- 
ject wrongfully accused or identified,' etc., by arresting officers 
and court officials would be beneficial to the arrested party as 
well as to law enforcement officials. I have never known during 
my 30 years of law enforcement experience of any instance when 
a person who has been arrested and fingerprinted, but has been 
acquitted, or when no complaint has been issued, which has pre- 
vented that person 's emploj^ment. ' ' ^^ 

The importance of filing such dispositions was pointed up by Dis- 
trict Attorney John Price of Sacramento : 

A. "... I agree that the recordkeeping is poor. It's probably 
the local agency 's fault that the records aren 't as complete because 
I get CII reports all the time where they showed no disposition 
of — and I think it's unfair . . . 

Q. "That's not your fault, though, is it? That's the function of 
the police department, the sherilf 's office. 

A. "Well, yes, but in a case just recently, we had a case of mis- 
taken identity. That is, the man was arrested, was identified by the 
victim of a robbery. There was some corroboration pointing to this 
particular defendant. Additionally, he demanded a lie detector 
test and failed it and positive identification by the two victims 
had been made. About two weeks later, we picked up another man 
on armed robbery and he copped out on this robberj' as well. Well, 
of course, there's always the possibility that he was going to take 
the fall for the possible friend, but we determined that this was 
not the case. On identification, that is the mug shots and standup 
shots, although there were 10 j-ears dilference in age, you could 
hardly tell them apart and the second arrestee described the in- 
terior of the home to the point where it couldn't be anybody else 
but him. Now, in that case, of course, the first man's record shows 
211, 1 mean he's charged. Then it's incumbent on our office to 
notify CII that his was clearly a case of mistaken identity. 

Q. ". . . All right, let's take the most extreme case. Now, how 
can we solve this problem? Let's take the man who was just a 
victim of circumstance, say he was at the wrong place at the 
right time so he comes in, the police investigate. lie's been arrested 
and he's released. Now, this man has a record. He's been photo- 
graphed, he's been fingerprinted. It's gone through the various 
agencies. Now, what can we do for that man? 

>" Letter received from George H. Brereton, Assistant Dlrectoi*. Chief of Brreau of 
Criminal Identification and Investigation, October 29, 195'J. 


A. "Well, the only practical thing I can think of, Mr. Francis, 
nnless you set up some system to judge which should be expunged 
and which should not be, would be to have a complete record- 
keeping of exactly what happened in the case. In my case of this 
boy, a complete disclosure to CII that it was clearly a case of mis- 
taken identity and that — I don't know how you're ever going 
to solve the problem where — 

Q. "Well, I think you've got a good point now. 

A. " — have you ever been arrested? The word arrested is on 
the books and a person in this situation has been arrested, there's 
no question about that. ' ' ^'^ 

Simply requiring that dispositions be filed in all cases in which the 
arrest record has been forwarded to the CII would not necessarily 
alleviate the problem because of the wide assortment of dispositions 
used in different areas of the State to cover the same type of release. 
For example, Mr. Price testified tliat the disposition in the case he 
discussed would be labeled "mistaken identity." However, in other 
areas of the State the same case would have dispositions ranging from 
"released under PC Sec. 849" to "no complaint filed." It is apparent 
that such a disposition on a felony arrest record would not be of much 
help to a job applicant. Uniform disposition categories must be used 
throughout the State. We recommend that the Bureau of Criminal 
Identification and Investigation define certain categories to be used 
by all reporting agencies. In making this recommendation we have in 
mind such categories as suggested by George li. Brereton's statement 
to the committee. 

" Testimony of John M. Price, District Attorney, Sacramento County, at Sacramento 
hearing, February 18-19, 1960. 




We find that, due to a variety of causes discussed in the text of this 
report, the creation of the Adult Authority has not entirely accom- 
plished the aim of establishingr an equitable sentencing procedure. More- 
over, there is no appeal to the courts from a decision of the Adult Au- 


The committee recommends that further study be given this situation 
to learn whether a special review procedure can be worked out for 
pri.soners who have served sentences far in excess of that usually served 
by prisoners committed on the same charge. The implementation of 
this recommendation would require the most careful drafting to insure 
appeals in proper cases and, at the same time, avoid unnecessary liti- 


"We find that the revocation of parole is such a drastic remedy that it 
should be done only after the parolee has had an opportunity to present 
his case fully to the members of the Adult Authority. 


The committee recommends the adoption of Section 305.21 of the 
Model Penal Code relating to revocation of parole.^ This section would 
provide : 

(1) That the parolee be given reasonable notice of the charges filed. 

(2) That he be permitted to advise with his own legal counsel. 

(3) That he shall be given a hearing at which he may admit, deny, 
or explain the violation charged ; tliat he may present proof, including 
affidavits and other evidence. 

(4) That parole may be revoked upon substantial evidence and with 
a majority vote of the board. 


We find that Penal Code Section 1203.01 requires that the judge and 
the district attorney shall cause to be filed with the clerk of the court a 
brief statement of their views respecting the person convicted or sen- 
tenced and the crime committed, together with such reports as the pro- 
l)ation officer may have made relative to the prisoner, and that such re- 
ports arc considered b}' the Adult Authority in setting sentence. No such 
statement is required of the defense attorney. 

' See Appendix D. 




We recommend that Section 1203.01 be amended to make it clear that 
a voluntary statement of this kind from the defense attorney would 
receive the same consideration as the statements required under this 


We find that occasionally disturbed prisoners are transferred to the 
care of the Department of Mental Plygiene and that, at the expiration 
of their sentences, they are not accorded the right to demand a jury 
trial on the issue of their insanity. We find nothing in the Penal Code 
or case law which would, in our opinion, justify such a procedure. 


We recommend that, at the expiration of the prisoner's sentence, 
if he is confined in a mental institution he shall be entitled to demand a 
jury trial on the issue of his sanity; he shall be entitled to the advice 
of counsel; and he shall have the right to all other protections which 
he would have enjoyed had he never been convicted of a crime. 


We find that the effectiveness of the Adult Authority depends, to a 
large extent, upon the quality of the staff available to them through 
the Department of Corrections. 


We recommend that the Legislature support efforts of the Depart- 
ment of Corrections to maintain the highest possible staff qualifications. 


Indeterminate sentences, in which penalties are not fixed by a court 
but by an administrative agency, are neither new nor unique to Cali- 
fornia. A study made by the United Nations traces the use of an in- 
determinate sentence back to Philip II of Spain. Under his Pragmatic 
Sanction of 1566 prisoners were sent to the galleys for an indeterminate 
period. Spain also developed an additional refinement in the "retention 
clause" under which a prisoner could be held after his sentence expired. 
Various indeterminate sentences were employed in continental Europe 
before 1700. For the most part these were workhouse situations involv- 
ing vagrants, beggars, prostitutes, and dissolute persons. 

In the middle of the 19th century, Captain Alexander Maconochie 
was placed in charge of an infamous Australian penal colony on Nor- 
folk Island. He instituted a revolutionary experimental program in- 
cluding an indeterminate sentence and, although his work was aborted 
by his less venturesome superiors, his innovations greatly influenced 
other penologists throughout the world. 

Historically, the first objective of proponents of the indeterminate 
sentence was to extend detention as long as it was thought necessary by 
the governing authorities. At a later period the idea of "reformation" 
or "rehabilitation" as it is now called, was more often cited as the basic 
justification of its use. Another advantage often claimed for it is a 


greater cousisteney in sentencing practices. Each of these contentions 
has been criticized either ou the ground that it is politically undesirable 
or that it is practically impossible of achievement. 

European intellectuals have considered the indeterminate sentence 
as an outgrowth of the deterministic philosophy which in its extreme 
form assumes that man has no control over his behavior due to bio- 
logical, cultural, or psychological determinants. This extreme position 
allows man little more leeway than the Greek myth of the three fates. 

At the other extreme are the neoclassicists who desire a fixed penalty 
for each crime, the idea being that such automatic punishment will 
serve as a deterrent. 

Witli neitlier of these positions being strong enough to rule out the 
other, a modified form of indeterminate sentence has been adopted in 
certain areas — notably the Scandinavian countries. Even here the resist- 
ance to complete indeterminacy is strong. For example, Sweden already 
specifies a minimum term and there is a strong movement to adopt a 
statutory maximum. 

English prison administrators apparently feel that the practical dis- 
advantages of the indeterminate system outweigh tlie theoretical ad- 
vantages. They generally support the contention that indeterminacy of 
sentence creates an element of unrest and discouragement for the of- 
fender. Serious doubts are held as to whether the paroling board will 
ever be able to make enough good guesses about the behavior of the 
prisoner after release to justify such a system.^ 

The Belgian Social Defense Act of 1930, setting up an indeterminate 
sentence program, went out of its way to create a special court for 
ruling on the continuance of detention. 

Europe's numerous experiences of unlimited administrative power 
also affect the attitudes expressed there regarding the indeterminate 

In France indeterminateness is achieved only in the use of such meas- 
ures as conditional release. There is a trend toward less rigid penalties 
but any real degree of indeterminacy in sentencing is opposed by 
strong fears of arbitrary- administration. 

In general, most indeterminate systems outside the United States 
are held within statutorily defined limits and supervised by the courts. 

It is in the United States, however, that the indeterminate sentence 
has received its warmest acceptance and the state of California was one 
of the first to adopt it. In 1917 California adopted its original inde- 
terminate sentence law which has undergone a number of modifications 
since that time. At first, the Board of Prison Directors had the term 
fixing and paroling function as well as the duty to administer the 
prisons. This overlapping of power was felt to be incompatible and 
an additional board, the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, was cre- 
ated and existed until 1944 when the present Adult Authority was 
established. It has substantially the same duties as its predecessor but 
its powers were enlarged somewhat. For example, it is also the Advisory 
Pardon Board to tho Governor. Later, in 1948, the Legislature repealed 
the statute authorizing "good time" credits, thereby giving the Adult 
Authority more discretion in many cases. 

1 Lionel W. Fox, The Enrjliah Prison and Borstal Systems, 1952, p. 305, cited In The 
Indetcrminnte Sentence, United Nations Publication, 1954, p. 56. 



The earliest objective of the indeterminate sentence — that of allow- 
ing the authorities to hold an inmate until they consider him "safe" or 
"rehabilitated" — is not mentioned as often in California as the more 
popular concepts of consistent sentencing- practices and individual treat- 
ment of prisoners. It may, however, be an important part of current at- 
tempts to redefine criminal insanity. Though most comments on this 
effort stress the altruistic aim of saving the lives of insane criminals who 
are sentenced to death, it must not be forgotten that the other side of 
the coin is to allow for absolutely indeterminate sentences for those 
minor criminals who are adjudged to be mentally irresponsible. At the 
present time, a citizen of California who is certified to a mental institu- 
tion can demand a jury trial on the issue of his sanity. A prisoner be- 
ing transferred to a mental institution just before the expiration of his 
sentence has no such recourse because, at the time of the transfer, he is 
without civil rights.^ Since a demand for jury trial must be within 10 
days, and he has no civil right within that time to make one, he is there- 
after confined to the mental institution totally at the discretion of the 
staff. Such a situation, combined with an enlarged definition of insan- 
ity, would make possible the most dangerous abuses. 

In 1951 the Maryland Legislature provided for a completely inde- 
terminate sentence for certain criminals whom they termed "defective 
delinquents." Under that plan, after conviction, and at the instigation 
of the court, the state 's attorne}^, the defendant himself, or the Depart- 
ment of Corrections, the defendant is referred to a special institution 
for psychiatric evaluation. Then : 

"... the institution staff makes thorough psychological and 
psychiatric studies of him, obtaining all available records and 
reports of his background which may be of assistance. On the basis 
of these, a report is made to the court with recommendations as 
to Avhether the individual should be indeterminately committed to 
the institution. If, in the opinion of at least three institution staff 
members, two of whom must be a psychiatrist and a psychologist, 
the other a physician, the individual is a defective delinquent, 
he is retained at the institution pending court determination. 
Otherwise, defendant is returned to the correctional institution of 
original commitment to complete the prison sentence. 

"The hearing for determination of defective delinquency is 
conducted in the normal manner of civil proceedings. The burden 
of proof is upon the state to show by a preponderance of the evi- 
dence that defendant meets the definition of a defective delinquent. 
The state is represented by the State 's Attorney 's office ; the statute 
makes mandatory that the defendant be furnished witli counsel 
of his own choosing, and be allowed to obtain independent psy- 
chiatric examination and testimony, both at the state 's expense. He 
may elect jury trial. Two years after the orginal commitment, 
and at intervals of three years thereafter, the defendant is entitled 
to rehearing under identical conditions. It is interesting at this 

2 Attorney General Opinion U.S. — 5813, May 31, 1945; In re Liggett 187 Cal. 428; and 
People V. Harmon, 54 Adv. Cal. "Reports. 


point to record that in more than 99 percent of the cases, psychia- 
trists privately selected b}- the defendants, their families or their 
counsel have agreed with the findings of the staff of Patuxent 

"In addition to court determination, the status of individuals 
committed to the institution is under the continual scrutiny of the 
Institutional Board of Review. The statute requires that this board 
consist of an attorney and a professor of constitutional law who are 
members of the Advisory Board, along with members of the insti- 
tution staff. Each committed case must be reviewed at least once 
annually, and a written report and recommendation filed on it. 
The Board is empowered to grant parole, and to make recommenda- 
tions to the courts for unconditional release or return of the indi- 
vidual to complete prison sentence. ' ' ^ 

This committee does not wish to be understood as endorsing this pro- 
gram ; we merely wish to point out that under this legislative program 
careful attention was given to guarding the rights of the individual 
prisoner. No plan can operate perfectly in this area at the present stage 
of scientific knowledge. In expanding the ambit of criminal law with 
regard to mental illness, the greatest care must be taken to assure that 
arbitrary imprisonment is not allowed in the name of treatment. This is 
tremendously important in view of the fact that decisions of the Adult 
Authority are, at present, subject to extremely limited review by any 
court of law, 


One of the reasons always put forth in support of the indeterminate 
sentence is that it ends the problem of wide disparity in the sentencing 
policies of many different judges. 

Tlieoretically, the method which would most nearly eliminate such 
disparities in judgment would be to revert to the classical "eye for an 
eye" type of statutory penaltj^ with no deviation whatever. Such sys- 
tems are impossible to maintain in civilized democratic countries be- 
cause jurors refuse to convict defendants of crimes carrying severe 
penalties when they feel that there are mitigating circumstances. 

It is true that no two crimes are exactly alike and this fact makes 
necessary a certain amount of flexibility in sentencing. The question 
then seems to be, who is to determine the length of sentence, and within 
what limitations? 

The absolutely indeterminate sentence (one day to life for any crime 
from petit theft to murder) has not proved to be generally acceptable. 
Certain statutory limitations, both as to offenses included and length of 
.sentence, have usually been imposed upon the sentencing authority. 

Wide variations in judicial sentences have often becji cited in urging 
the adoption of indeterminate sentencing. However, it is plainly evident 
that tlie rehabilitative aspect of the indeterminate sentence necessarilj- 
entails disparate sentences. For example, of two first degree robbers, the 
one who made the better and earlier adjustment, that is to say, the one 
who was first rehabilitated, would be released earlier. This would be 
true if one of them were rehabilitated in two years and the other one 

"Jerome Robinson, "The Maryland A|)proach to Defective Delinquent Crinunal.s" 
(State Govemme7it, Summer Issue, 1959), p. 181. 


stayed in prison for the rest of his life. This could hardly be called 
consistency in sentencing' policy — at least from the aspect of time served 
in prison. It has been pointed ont that the sentence is definite — it is the 
term of imprisonment that is indefinite. Tliere are a number of offenses 
from wliich widely differing prison terms could result.* Clearly then, 
there are factors other than time served which must be considered. 

It has been suggested that, despite the above mentioned differences in 
periods of incarceration, one term-setting board is better able to adopt a 
unified policy with regard to all individuals in the prison system. In 
this respect it is interesting to consider that the Adult Authority origi- 
nally had three members. It was later enlarged to five and finally to 
seven members. At first it considered cases with all members sitting 
together. Later the press of work made it necessary to split up into 
panels as well as adding more members. At present there are often 
panels consisting of one member of the Adult Authority and one mem- 
ber of the staff. This is perfectly understandable when a consideration 
is made of the number of cases to be reviewed annuall3^ At the same 
time, it quite obviously is a dilution of the original theory of uniform 
decisions. There appears to be no reason to expect the workload of the 
Adult Authority to decrease and allow a reversal of this trend. The 
effect of this problem is described by Paul W. Tappan as follows : 

' ' While the point would seem to be obvious, it must nevertheless 
be remarked that it is not enough that an elaborate file be prepared 
on the prisoner before his parole hearing. If the accumulated infor- 
mation is to play the significant role that it should in parole, the 
record must be studied carefully and objectively by board mem- 
bers before their decisions are made. It appears to be common 
practice, unfortunately, for boards under the pressure of onerous 
duties to be content with a hurried reading of a brief summary at 
the time of the parole hearing and to arrive at a decision at that 
time. Under these circumstances, excessive weight may be given to 
the impressionistic observations of the board members, to the 
formal criminal record of the offender, or to the inferences con- 
tained in the parole summary. When only five or ten minutes are 
given to study of the record and interview of the prisoner, judg- 
ment cannot be adequately informed. Where only one member of a 
parole board consults the record and makes the parole decision, 
there is grave danger of bias. Frequent errors are inevitable."^ 

Many critics feel that whatever gains were made by adopting Cali- 
fornia's present system were outweighed by the dangers inherent in 
such an administrative tribunal. Chief Judge Louis E. Goodman of 

the United States District Court, Northern District of California, has 
commented : 

"It may be a dangerous innovation with far reaching conse- 
quences to turn over the sentencing function to the executive 
branch, because that branch does not have the independence and 
immunity from outside influence inherent in the judiciary." 

^ See Appendix A. 

^ Paul W. Tappan, Crime, Justice and Correction. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book 
Company, Inc., 1960), p. 727. 

5— L.-2142 


Such apprehensions as those expressed by Jiidfje Goodman are accen- 
tuated by the fact that decisions of the Adult Authority are only 
theoretically subject to judicial review. The only appeal therefrom is 
to the pardon powers of the Governor — and the members of the Adult 
Authority constitiite the Governor's Advisory Pardon Board. 


Sentencing practices of the various states are described by Tappan 
as f 0II0W.S : 

"... at the present time the indefinite sentence has been adopted 
as the exclusive form of prison sentence for felons in eijrht states. 
In an additional 22 states and the District of Columbia, it is 
used more than any other type of sentence. Statistical reports of 
recent years indicate a very substantial continuinf; use of definite 
sentences, howcA'er. Thus, in 1950, while 26,768 state sentences 
were indefinite, 10,728 state and 11,492 federal sentences were 
definite. Considerinrr only state sentences, there was an increase 
in the use of indefinite sentences from 46.6 percent of all sentences 
in 1940 to 57.6 percent in 1950. As has already been implied, such 
figures present an oversimplification of the picture because of 
the existing diversity in sentencing practices. Variations occur in 
tlie length of sentence imposed in different jurisdictions, in the 
method of determining parole eligibility and in the way that 
ultimate discharge from official control occurs. These variations are 
far more important than the formal title of the sentence system 
used by a state. The establishment of parole in all jurisdictions 
has resulted in a dc facto system of indefinite terms for felons 
nearlj' everywhere. The relative merits of different systems depend 
upon the consequences of the various specific practices employed." ® 

The following chart was prepared by Paul Tappan to illustrate 
varying sentence patterns: 

Indefinite Sentences 

Judicial determination of minimum and maximum within statu- 
tory limits: 

Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine,* Massachu- 
setts,'' New Hampshire, New Jersey,*^ New York, North Caro- 
lina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,'' Utah," Vermont, "Wyoming, 
District of Columbia.' 
Minimum and maximum determined by statute : No judicial con- 
trol : 

Indiana, Kansas,^ Nevada,'' New ^Mexico, Ohio. 
Judicial determination of minimum, maximum determined bj* 
statute : 
Judicial determination of maximum, minimum determined by 
statute : 

•Tappan, op cit., p. 437. 


No miiiimum, inaxiiiniin (letoriuined by statute : 

Idaho, Iowa. 
No miuimum, .judicial detennination of maximum witliiu statutory 
limit : 

Minnesota, Oregon. 
Jury determination of minimum and maximum within statutory 
limits : 

Term fixed by administrative agency* within statutory limits: 

California,^ Washington,'^ West Virginia.*^ 

Definite Sentences 

Judicial determination of sentence within statutor}' limit : 

Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, federal. 

Sentence determined by statute : 

Sentence determined by jury within statutory limits : 

Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri,' Oklahoma, Tennes- 
see, Texas, Virginia. 

Sentence fixed by administrative agency within statutory' limit : 
South Dakota. 

(a) Minimum may not be more than one-half maximum term 
in statute; 

(b) Minimum not less than 2^ years; 

(c) Minimum not less than 1 year; 

(d) Minimum not more than one-half maximum prescribed 
by court. 

(e) Parole may occur before expiration of minimum; 

(f) Minimum to be not more than one-third maximum; 

(g) Governor may parole at any time; 

(h) Court may fix minimum or maximum when they are not 

fixed in statute; 
(i) The "term-fixing" powers of the boards are in etfect no 

more than a setting of parole release dates within limits 

fixed by statute. 
(j) Minimum and maximum are fixed by statute, 
(k) No minimum, maximum is fixed by statute. 
(1) Board may release at any time.'^ 


The Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, at its October, 
1940 session, gave its approval to a bill relating to sentencing which was 
later introduced into the Senate as Senate Bill No. 1638. Strong judicial 
opposition to the bill soon developed and the conference determined 
to make a further study of the subject. The committee appointed in- 
cluded the following : Jolni J. Parker, chairman ; Ijearned Hand, Orie 
L. Phillips, John C. Collet, Carrol C. Ilincks, Bolitha J. Laws, and 

' Tappan, op. cit., p. 43S. 


Paul J. McCormick. The following quotations are from the report 
of this committee to the Judicial Conference in June of 1942 : 

"This bill is not a true indeterminate sentence law, but contains 
certain features of such a law, and is modeled on the statute of 
California. Its distinguishing characteristic is that it provides 
that all sentences for more than one year shall be for the maximum 
term, with provision that thereafter a board of sentence and parole 
shall fix the definite term of imprisonment that the prisoner shall 
serve. The effect of this, of course, is to take all control over sen- 
tences of more than one year out of the hands of the judges and 
to vest it in the board of sentence and parole. We find that the 
district judges of the country are strongly opposed to the measure. 
Of 62 who gave indication of their views in response to the ques- 
tionnaire sent out by the committee, 10 were in favor of the law 
and 52 were opposed to it. The views of these judges, which are 
entitled to great weight, are to the effect that it is unwise to take 
the sentencing power in the case of serious crimes entirely out of 
the hands of the judges and vest it in an administrative board not 
subject to review or control of any sort. 

"The merit of the bill heretofore indorsed by the conference is 
that it provides a scientific and intelligent approach to the ques- 
tion of sentencing. Under it, sentence is deferred until the prisoner 
can be thoroughly studied and his reaction to imprisonment ascer- 
tained. Opinions of psychiatrists and criminologists, as well as 
prison officials, are available to the sentencing board ; and the board 
will be the same body that will ultimately have the power of parole 
with respect to the prisoner. Definite policies in punishment can 
be carried out on a nation-wide scale and shocking disparities in 
sentences can be avoided. District judges have pointed out, how- 
ever, that a Aveakness of the system is that all judicial control over 
the matter of punishment, in the case of serious crimes is removed, 
and the matter is left to the unreviewable discretion of an admin- 
istrative board, which Avill lack many of the features which have 
given the public confidence in the courts. Integration of the sen- 
tencing and paroling functions is attained in the case of serious 
crimes, but it is attained only by vesting the sentencing power in 
the parole board and abolishing the power in the courts. 

Power to Admif to Probations Unimpaired 

'"With respect to all olfenders, the proposed act leaves in the 
liands of the judge, as it now is, the power to admit to probation, 
Avithout power on the part of anyone to review the judge's action. 

Recommendation by Board Where Sentence More Than One Year 

* ' The proposed act leaves the matter of sentence in the hands of 
tlie judge, without change of existing law, except as to sentences 
for more than one year. Where the judge is of the opinion that a 
.sentence of more than one year should be imposed, he is required 
by the act to impose at first a general sentence of imprisonment 
wliieh shall be for the maximum term prescribed by law; but he 
is empowered to modify this sentence after he has had opportunity 
to be advised by the Board of Corrections with regard to it. The 


act provides that the Board of Corrections, in those cases, shall 
within six months after the offender bccjins service of his sentence 
recommend what in its opinion the definite sentence ought to be, 
and that the judge shall thereupon fix the definite sentence, which 
shall be the sentence to be served by the prisoner. The board shall 
state its reason in its recommendation. If the judge disapproves 
the sentence recommended, he is required to state his reasons, 
but is not bound by the recommendation and may proceed to fix 
the definite sentence to be served by the prisoner in accordance with 
his judgment. If the board fails to recommend sentence within 
six months, the judge acts without its recommendation. If he 
fails to act upon its recommendations within 60 days, the recom- 
mendations become the sentence. 

"It will be observed that this provision of the act leaves the 
sentencing power of the judge unimpaired, but provides that he 
shall have expert advice in fixing the sentence in the case of 
serious offenses which, in his opinion, merit a sentence of more 
than one year. This advice will come from the board which is 
charged with the duty of ultimately passing upon the prisoner's 
parole, and it is believed that the plan proposed will result in a 
satisfactory integration and coordination of the sentencing and 
paroling functions. The board, with opportunity to observe the 
prisoner under confinement, to take account of his reaction to pun- 
ishment, to study his record, and to have the advice and assistance 
of experts, will recommend to the court the sentence which, in its 
opinion, he should serve. The judge will receive the recommenda- 
tion and follow it, or decline to follow it, as appears to him to be 
wise. This means, of course, that ultimate power in the matter 
of fixing sentence remains with the judge and that the judge 
reviews the board and not the board the judge. This is in accord, 
not only with the idea that the sentencing power is judicial in 
character, but also with the concept that administrative agencies 
should be subject to judicial review to the end that fundamental 
rights of the individual may not be impaired. ' ' ^ 

It was August 25, 1958, before the federal sentencing procedure was 
modified by legislation and then the change did not go as far as sug- 
gested in the above report.^ Instead of making all sentences for more 
than one year subject to the delayed sentencing procedure suggested 
by the judicial conference, several alternative methods of sentencing 
were provided. The ultimate choice of sentencing procedures, however, 
was left to the judge. It is to be noted that, in addition to setting up 
sentencing procedures, the legislation attempts to reduce disparities in 
sentencing policies throughout the federal courts by creating institutes 
and joint councils on sentencing. 


The trend toward longer sentences under the indeterminate sentence 
system is criticized by manj^ persons concerned with the administration 

^Report to the Judicial Conference of the Committee on Punishment for Crim,e CWash- 

ington : United States Government Printing Office, June 1942), pp. 6, 7 and 12. 
^ See Appendix B for Public Law 85-752 and Congressional Conference Report. 


of justice.^" For example, Francis A. Allen, Professor of Law at the 
University of Chicago has written : 

"The tendency of proposals for wiiolly iiulclcniiiiiate sentences, 
a clearly identifiable fruit of the reliabilitative ideal, is unmis- 
takably in the direction of lenfjcthened periods of imprisonment. 
A large variety of statutes authorizing what is called civil com- 
mitment of persons, but which, except for the reduced protections 
ati'orded the parties proceeded against, are essentially criminal in 
nature, provide for absolutely indeterminate periods of confine- 
ment. Ex]ierienee has demonstrated tliat there is a strong tendency 
for the rehabilitative ideal to serve purposes that are essentially 
incapacitativc rather than therapeutic in character, " ^^ 

Sol Kubin, Legal Consultant to the National Probation and Parole 
Association, states, with relation to the same problem: 

"... Advocacy of the indeterminate system is allegedly based 
on the flexibility of sucli a sentence, wliieli provides a framework 
for individualized treatment. Eai'lier advocates of the indetermi- 
nate sentence were more concerned with lengthening the period of 
incarceration for 'hardened' criminals than with shortening the 
time for others. Has this viewpoint persisted in practice? 

"... Excluding death sentences, sentences of five j'ears and 
over comprised 76 percent of all the maximum indeterminate sen- 
tences, whereas all defijiite sentences of five years and over were 
only 32.4 percent of the total, 

", . . A definite sentence law gives the judge greater responsi- 
bility to fix a sentence than the indeterminate sentence law, and 
the allocated responsibility is one of the things needed to avoid the 
automatic long terms. A parole law atfording complete discretion, 
coupled with a definite sentence system, more truly meets the 
intent of the indeterminate sentence idea than an indeterminate 
sentence system, even Avith a flexible ])arole law. A four-year defi- 
nite sentence combined with eomi)]ete jiarole authority, is in effect 
an indeterminate sentence witli no fixed minimum, but with a 
maxinnnn of four years fixed by a court which knows it is re- 
sponsible for considering the individual defendant in fixing that 

"Assuming that a comjietent, adequate ])arole staff is available 
to a pi'ofessional, full-time parole board, the tliird legal element is 
a law that gives the board complete diseretion within the maxi- 
mum sentence. 

"Under those eireumstanees. we can achieve a measure of indi- 
vidualized treatment without the injustice of automatic sentences. 
Until tliat is achieved, I believe that, by and large, the indetermi- 
nate sentence is a imndicap to reformation of offenders, rather than 
a help,'"- 

>" See l.'ist parafjrapli f)f confereiue report, Appendix B. 

" Francis A. Allen, "Criminal Justice, Legal Values and the Rehabilitative Ideal," The 

./ourniil of Criminal Law, Crini\noloy\j and Police Science, Sept. -Oct., 1959, Vol. 

.50. No. 3. p. 229. 
"Sol Rubin. Focus (New York City: National Probation and Parole Association, 

1918), V 27-2;", 1048-50. pp. 47, 48 and .52. 



The completely indeterminate sentence (one day to life for any 
criminal conviction) seems to have few fervent supporters today. The 
same thing can surely be said about fixed penalties without alterna- 
tives. There is still much room in between for variations in sentencing 
policy. These variations are not choices that can be made solely by 
attorneys, psychiatrists, parole boards, sociologists, judges or any other 
group. They are political decisions of the utmost importance because 
they affect the basic relationship between the individual and the con- 
certed power of the government. The issues involved should be consid- 
ered carefully by the people and their elected representatives. Only in 
this way can they make choices which reflect their deliberate value 


Initially, most people who w^ere sent to an institution by govern- 
mental action found themselves all locked up together — men, women, 
youngsters, insane persons, felons, or debtors. Some of the earliest 
prison reforms were made in the beginning of classification ; men were 
separated from women, felons from debtors, young people from adults. 

Today the heart of the indeterminate sentence system lies in an ex- 
tensive classification and treatment program. Under this program, a 
prisoner is sent directly from the sentencing court to a reception- 
guidance center operated by the Department of Corrections. Here he 
is studied by a team of doctors, sociologists, psychologists, and in some 
cases, psychiatrists. He is given any necessary dental and medical treat- 
ment. He is subjected to a batteiy of tests in an attempt to measure 
his I.Q., his educational level, his emotional stability, and any special 
abilities he may have. Letters are written to his friends, former em- 
ployers, relatives, and any other interested parties, in an effort to learn 
as much as possible about him. On the basis of this accumulated in- 
formation, the staff at the reception-guidance center makes recom- 
mendations as to the degree of security necessary for the inmate (i.e., 
medium, maximum, etc.), the type of work assignment thought suit- 
able, possible education or training program, and treatment desirable 
(medical, psychiatric, etc.). After these recommendations have received 
the approval of the Director of Corrections, they are known as the 
"approved program" for that individual. 

The Department of Corrections' Manual of Procedures for Classifi- 
cations states : 

''The approved recommendations shall be closely adhered to by 
the Institutional Classification Committee and its subcommittees 
as institutional facilities and the changing needs of each inmate 
permit." ^^ 

An extensive classification program is of little value without an ex- 
tremely diversified prison system. In this respect, California is enjoy- 
ing the results of its postwar prison building program. Under the 
outstanding leadership of Richard McGee, the Department of Correc- 
tions has established facilities to satisfy widely varied needs — from. 

^ The Manual of Procedures for Classification in the Department of Corrections of the 
State of California (State of California, Department of Corrections, Sacramento, 
1955), p. 10. 


the minimum security farm type institution to maximum security facili- 
ties at Folsom and San Quentin. These institutions offer a correspond- 
ingly wide selection of work and training programs. 

Theoretically, when the staff of the reception-guidance center has 
finished studying the incoming prisoner, they know enough about him 
to prescribe the program and treatment most likely to bring about his 

The Handbook on Classification, prepared in 1947, by the American 
CorrcL'tioual Association points out as advantages of classification: 

1. Proper segregation of different types of offenders; 

2. More adequate custodial supervision and control ; 

3. Better discipline; 

4. Increased productivity of inmates ; 

5. More effective organization of all training and treatment facilities; 

6. Greater continuity in the trainiiiL'" and treatment program; 

7. Higher personnel morale ; 

8. Better inmate attitude ; 

9. Reduced failures of men released ; 

10. Better guides in long-range planning of building requirements; 

11. Classification reports have many values (for use for parole boards, 
by institutions in other states, etc.).'^* 

In studying the actual probabilities for success, at least two questions 
must be answered. 

1. Has behavioral science advanced to the point at which it can ac- 
curately determine the cause of criminal behavior and prescribe effec- 
tive correctives ? 

2. If so, are highly trained people available in sufficient numbers to 
do the job ? 

In respect to the first question the following quotations from various 
specialists may be illuminating : 

(1) "It is not only in the diagnosis of psychopath that we see con- 
fusion in tlie use of diagnostic labels. A study of over 800 psy- 
chiatric admissions, with several diagnostic re-evaluations of the 
same patients within a rather brief period of time revealed that 
65 percent of those patients seen by more than one psychiatrist 
received at least two different psychiatric diagnoses. There was 
some indication that the more psychiatrists an individual saw, 
the more widely differing diagnoses the patient received. Several 
individuals in the group received diagnoses of neurotic, psy- 
chotic and character disorder, all referring to the same psy- 
chiatric disturbance. . . . 

"It is indicated that final prognosis in any individual case 
will often depend not so much on what is diagnostically pre- 
dicted as it will on subsequent treatment or environmental in- 
fluences. . . . 

"Harry E. Barne.s and NeBley K. Teetens, New Horizons in CtHminology (Englewood 
Cliff.s; ITentice-Hall. Inc., 195'J). p. 469, citing Handbook on Classification in 
Correctional Institutions, 1947, p. 2. 


"There are certainly other psychiatrists who, because of their 
own personality makeup, do not tolerate hostility comfortably 
from their patients. So simply findinj^ a psychiatrist to see an 
offender does not assure an objective, unbiased approach." ^^ 

(2) "The most trenchant criticism of modern classification cli'iics, 
as we find them in prisons today, is that they fail in treatment. 
There is little criticism regarding diagnosis, but it is debatable 
whether the prison will ever be able to do very much in the 
field of treatment. The clinic can point out many physical de- 
fects in prisoners, and the facilities available will be able to 
clear up m.any of these. But there is little evidence that a pro- 
gram can be developed that has meaning for the inmate except 
in a few isolated cases. One can admire the shiny filing cabinets 
in which are kept the complete records of each inmate ; one can 
respect the professional staff for their skill and dedication to 
long hours of toil. But he can have little enthusiasm for results. 
Imprisonment nullifies most of the efforts of even the most 
conscientious members of the classification clinic. ' ' ^^ 

(3) " 'Individuals who are clinically, psychiatrically, or psychologi- 
cally abnormal to any significant degree, constitute a minor 
segment of the criminal population as a whole. The insane, the 
neurotic, and the mentally defective all together do not exceed 
m.ore than four or five percent of the total of individuals who are 
involved in major types of crimes.' This was the finding of a 
surve}^ of 71,296 psychiatric examinations given by the New 
York' County Psychiatric Clinic between 1932 and 1957. 'Con- 
sequently, from the standpoint of treatment, correction, rehabili- 
tation and supervision, only one out of 20 felonious offenders 
should need the professional services of psychiatric or ancillary 
personnel . . . 

" 'One is led to the conclusion that the management of the 
great mass of adult criminal offenders, rightly is, and should 
remain, in the hands of penologists, judicial and correctional 
authorities, parole boards, and probation bureaus . . . 

" 'It is our distinct impression, gained from the observation 
of thousands of recidivists in our clinic and elsewhere, that 
generally, stern, practical penological measures have a more 
salutary and longer-lasting restraining effect than hopeful but 
misguided 'psychiatric guidance. '" ^'^ 

(4) "We try to classify prisoners and segregate them to prevent 
the worst from infecting the best. Classification becomes more 
than this: It discloses the inmate's 'individual needs' and the 
staff works out a 'program' for him — shop for some, school for 
others, and so on. Classification indeed becomes the heart of 

15 Jack V. Wallinga (Psychiatrist), "The Probation Officer's Role in Psycliiatric 
Cases," Tlie Journal of Criminal Laro, Criyniyiology and Police Science, Nov. -Dec, 
1959, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 364, 365. 

"Harry Elmer Barnes and Nejrley K. Teeters, Neiv Horizons in Criminology (Engle- 
wood Cliffs, N..J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 477. 

"Emanuel Messinger and Benjamin Apfelberg, Ncxo York County Court of General 
Session. Psychiatric Clinic, a Quarter Century of Court Psychiatry (New York, 
1958), p. 46 (mim.), cited in California Public Survej/. Bureau of Public Admin- 
istration, University of California, Berkeley, October 1959. 


rehabilitation. "We employ inmate counselors who help them 
with their prison-made problems — the wife who is running 
around with another man, the former business partner who is 
absconding with the assets. We employ decent guards who will 
not abuse the inmates and may even, by upright example and 
sympathetic advice, aid their rehabilitation. 

"Well, does it work? It does not, and it cannot. The toilet in 
the cell, the gleaming kitchen, the school and the shop — these 
are the things that we think we would like to have if we were 
in prison. They have nothing whatever to do with the tilings 
that made John Doe a criminal. Of course it is desirable to 
teach an illiterate to read; but it was not his illiteracy that 
brought him to prison, and when he goes out, whether he can 
read or not, he will return, unless we have changed the thing, 
whatever it was, that made him a criminal. It is fine to teach 
a young armed robber the trade of tinsmith; but he wasn't a 
robber because he lacked a trade, and unless we get at the 
thing that made him a robber he will prefer the robber's trade 
to tinsmither}'. Putting a man in a minimum-security institution 
may teach him the wisdom of not running away from custody; 
whether it will ju'event him from committing another crime is 
a wholly separate and unrelated question. ' ' ^^ 

(5) "An improved methodology in psj-chiatric work should, in time, 
dispel the popular notion that psychiatric conclusions are, for 
the most part, inferential guesses. Knowledge of the offender 
today is, in fact, greater than ever before and has enabled the 
clinician to reduce the plienomenology of crime to a few basic 

"The theoretical advances, moreover, once well-established, 
will undoubtedly have greater influence on the penology of the 
future. They may, for example, lead to a further acceptance of 
the indeterminate sentence on a moi-e universal basis and the 
expanding of legislation dealing with pathological offenders — 
both of which would not in any way lessen the social safeguards 
and, at the same time, would increase the prospects of rehab- 
ilitation." i» 

(6) "As has been pointed out above, this treatment viewpoint has 
been ])resent from the ver^- beginning, despite tlie fact that no 
technique for treating delinquent behavior had been adetjuately 
formulated and tested. Even today, with the many advances 
of the basic sciences, such tcchnicjues are but imperfectly un- 
derstood and do not, as many sophisticated therapists have rec- 
ognized, meet expectations. In study after study, this fact has 
been demonstrated. The fact remains, however, that during the 
5'J years since the founding of the Juvenile Court, the clamor 
concerning the need for treatment, luiture of treatment, correct 
treatment procedure ami treatment facilities ha.s continued to 

"John Bartlow Martin, Break Duicn the Walls (Xew York: liallantino Books, 1954), 

p. 2:{2. 
"Ralph Br.ancale (Psychiatrist), "Diagnostic Technique in Aid of Sentencing," Lato 

and Contemporary I'roblcms, Sentencing (Durham: Duke ITniversity School of 

Law, Summer, 1958), V. 23, No. 3, pp. 448 and 453. 


fill the pages of the professional journals, newspaper supple- 
ments, and professional lectures on delinquency to various com- 
munity groups.-'' 

"The study further indicates that of the 133 psychiatrists 
employed in American prisons, only 53 were reported to be 
certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and 27 to be 
'board eligible.' It was not ascertained how many psychologists 
were academically qualified. While many persons doing treat- 
ment work in our prisons are labeled 'social workers,' there are 
actually few who are entitled to that appellation. In other words, 
not many are graduates of an accredited school of social work 
or members of the National Association of Social Workers. ' ' ^^ 

(7) "The limitations of our knowledge and diagnostic tools in- 
evitably lead us to incomplete and commonly inaccurate diag- 
noses of causation. Psychological testing and casework investi- 
gation provide clues to the existence of emotional and social 
problems but do not portray the dynamic relationship of the 
variables out of which criminality develops. ' ' ^^ 

(8) "Philip Ash, in a study of psychiatric diagnoses, found that in 
using 60 diagnostic categories, agreement by three psychiatrists 
was reached in only 20 percent of the cases studied and that 
even when these categories were reduced to only five classifica- 
tions there was agreement only on 46 percent of the cases." ^^ 

Outside the realm of opinion, legal cases have illustrated the falli- 
bility of psychiatric diagnosis. The example below is from People v. 
Stephen A. Nash. 

"Defendant's (Stephen A. Nash) first killing was in December 
1955. A few days thereafter he was arrested for assault upon an- 
other homosexual 'pickup,' convicted of a misdemeanor, and served 
six months. At this time he was examined by two psychiatrists who 
determined that he was not a sexual psychopath. After his arrest 
on the present charges defendant, in talking with Dr. Kelley, de- 
scribed these examinations and explained 'how you go about fool- 
ing some psychiatrists.' " "'^ 

The Nash case represents both sides of the insanity problem which 
must be considered in lawmaking: 

(1) Nash was not recognized as a sexual psychopath early enough 
to prevent his depredations upon society. 

Since he was studied by two psj^chiatrists, the question inevitably 
presents itself — might not they have made errors of judgment in the 
other direction, diagnosing as sexual psychopaths, persons who really 
were not? 

20 H. Warren Dunham, "The Juvenile Court : Contradictory Orientations in Processing 
Offenders," Laiv and Contemporary Problems, Sentencing (Durham: Dulte Uni- 
versity School of Law, Summer, 1958), V. 23, No. 3, p. 516. 

-^ Barnes and Teeters, op. cit., p. 479. 

-- Tappan, op. cit., -p. 537. 

23 Philip Ash, "The Reliability of Psychiatric Diagnoses," J. Abnorm. 8oc. Psych., Vol. 
44, 1949, P. 272. Cited in Tappan, op. cit.. footnote No. 53, p. 537. 

-' People V. Stephen A. Nash, 52 Cal. 2d 36, 43. 


(2) Nash was executed, several mnnlers later, after a psychiatric 
(liajriiosis that he had "an underlyinjr paranoid, mcfjalomanic, sehizo- 
l)hrenie psychosis." He was, however, legally sane under present Cali- 
fornia law. 

On the question of the indefinite commitment of prisoners until they 
are rehabilitated, we have come to the conclusion that Professor Fran- 
cis A. Allen is correct in saying : 

"... the values of individual liberty may be imperiled by claims 
to knowledge and therapeutic technique that we, in fact, do not 
possess and by failure candidly to concede what we do not know. 
At times practitioners of the behavioral sciences have been guilty 
of these faults. At other times, such errors have supplied the as- 
sumptions on which legislators, law^-ers and lay people generally 
have proceeded. Ignorance, in itself, is not disgraceful so long as 
it is unavoidable. But when we rush to measures affecting human 
liberty and human dignity on the assumption that we know what 
we do not know or can do what we cannot do, then the problem 
of ignorance takes on a more sinister hue. ... It is no paradox 
to assert tliat tbe real utility of scientific technique in the fields 
under discussion depends on an accurate realization of the limits of 
scientific knowledge."-^ 

It may be that the techni(|nes of the behavioral sciences will be 
jierfected in the comparatively near future. Great advances have al- 
ready been made in creating drugs which appreciably alter man's 
behavior by changing his brain cbemistiy.-*^ Experiments are con- 
tinuing in hypnosis, various therapy techniques, and other methods 
of modifying man's personality. When science reaches the point at 
which it is able to alter man's personality to fit any desired pattern 
our i)roblem will have changed. Such an achievement will rank with 
splitting the atom. Man will be able to cure criminality and mental 

However, this breakthrough, like "harnessing" the atom, will have 
a Jekyll-Hyde (Character and will demand as much of man's ingenuity 
and wisdom as living with the atom. 


Many people believe that psychiatrii' care of prisoners is imi)Ossiblc 
because the success of the treatment depends upon its voluntary nature 
— the jiatient must want to be helped and must enter actively into 

Assuming that effective psychological reorientation of prisoners is 
possible, do we have enough skilled personnel to do the .iob? 

As of October lf)t)0, there were 20, 77."} inmates under the direction of 
the Board of Corrections. Comparatively, California is in a favorable 
position regarding its prison system. It attempts to maintain high 

» AUen. op. cit., rp. 2.!0 and 231. 

* See Hobert S. deUopp, Dmgs and the Mind (New York: Grove Pres.«, Inc.. I960). 

and Aldous Huxley, Bra ir Si\r U'.n-M />'» i i.vif> </ (New York: Harper ^: Bri>ther>;, 

1958), Chapter VIII. 


standards of personnel selection and training, bnt even here the familiar 
financial squeeze on prisons is evident in the following figures : 


Position authorized Filled 

1. Psychiatrists 

Psychiatrist full-time 10 8 

Psychiatrist ^-time 6 6 

Psychiatrist, chief, correctional facility 3 2 

2. Psychologists 

Vocational psychologist 1 

Clinical psychologist I 6 

Clinical psychologist II 19 14 

Clinical psychologist III 2 3* 

3. Correctional Counselors 

Correctional casework trainee 12 11 

Correctional counselor I 86 78 

Correctional counselor II 44 34 * 

Correctional counselor III 19 18 

* Including one in central administrative office. 

Highl}'- trained specialists in psychiatry, psychology, and sociology 
are not often interested in the low salaries and working conditions of- 
fered by prisons. 

It is apparent that tlie treatment staff available is not able to give 
any significant amount of time to each of California's 20,773 prison 

Much of the psychiatrists' time is absorbed by administrative details. 
In addition, a psychiatrist must sit with the Adult Authority panel 
which hears the Special Eeport Calendar. This calendar includes the 
murder firsts, sex ofi'enders, and others who receive special attention in 
parole considerations. These special cases account for roughly one-third 
of all hearings and require a high percentage of the psychiatric time 

Considering the ratio of clinical psychologists employed by the De- 
partment of Corrections to the number of inmates, it is doubtful 
whether anything more than the initial testing is done by psychologists. 
This means that tlie bulk of treatment is done by the correctional 

The clinical psychologist, grade I. must have completed Ph.D. re- 
quirements (except for foreign language exam and dissertation) and an 
internship of at least one semester. The correctional counselor grade I 
mininmm requirement is the equivalent to college graduation plus one 
year as a paid trainee in the Department of Corrections. The top salary 
for a grade I clinical psychologist is $530 per month. The top salary 
for a grade I correctional counselor is $613 per month. The higher 
degree of training and the lower salary probably account for the fact 
that of six positions authorized in this bracket, not one has been filled. 
At the same time, of the 86 correctional counselor I positions, 78 have 
been filled. 

The typical tasks of a correctional counselor I are outlined by the 
State Personnel Board as follows: 

"Interviews inmates and evaluates their adjustment to and 
progress in correctional treatment programs; counsels inmates on 

90 juaasMBvr 

p e iMwu l, imlituli omal, and Cunflf^ proUems; eollaboimlis witli 
siocial agencies in preparii^ inmates and IJheir familirg for innata'' 
eroitiial rdease on parrie; intcrprels eonditioiKS of parole to pit>- 
speetiiv parolees and prepares inmates far rdetst on panrie w 
disdbaiige; eoOeela^ evaluates, and reends social, behaTiml, and 
Toeatxinal data on inmates; abstracts and eontribates to conni- 
lative ease histoiy data and maioes reeommendations pertinent to 
claasifieatifMi and assignment planning and to sobseqoent stndf 
and tzeatment programs; interprets social summaries in diagnoBtie 
eonterenees; idfTftiifiiMK critieal JEaetocs in inmates' emotional and 
SDciad maladjustment iriudi hare resolted in erimimdo^eal be- 
barior and evalnates these foetiMS as Incas for poasiUe explanatiwi 
of tbe deriant bcbarifor, prospects for chai^ge in atti^ide and 
aetrrities, and iwrognoias emeeming expected adjustment in tbe 
i nsti t uti on and upm rdeuse; ewaluates inmate educational and 
Toeational bac^gronnd, significance of work experience, and idea- 
tional interests,, aptitudes and ddlls; identifi(» and repoffts on 
special, educational, and vmtatiiaaal prtubknts as basis for reeom- 
TiiyMling jq»^Yipriate programs of Toeational training; adnun- 
isten^ aemres, and interprets results of educatianaL, pqpdulogieal, 
and Tocatianal tests used in eounsding and placement ntnk; assists 
inmates in preparing Tocatknal and educational plans and pro- 
grams; effindnets inieatianal da»es on job requirements and job 
opportunities in varioiB areas of empioTment; dm:t tedkmieml tker- 
mpemtit w&rk imtygiruuf tke ermmimmHom, eimaifiemtiom, diagmatgU, 
gromp mmd imdhaidmdi tkermpy; as assigned, aa^ts in tbe ap^ica- 
tion of rarions group tberapv^ tecfaniqpnes; aids inmates in reeogniz- 
ing forees in their enrirmanent wtodi hare influenced tbem, in 
becoming more skilled in soiling their jnoblems, and in exovinng 
sdf-direetkm and self-fcstraint; maintains case h istor ie s on in- 
mates during confinement and wnitk€:s rttnomumerndtiticfms om dhmmge* 
m dmtnfiemHam or maigmmnemis, m*e of lagmn tume and need for 
psrchiatric treatment; prqnres board r e ports <m inmates' aetrr- 
ities in tbe i nstituti wB, visitors, medical rtaminations, attitudes, 
behavior, and eomamemtM for the mae «/ tks Admit AmthorUy im 
ddtermmumg tumiemct^ or pmnU eUgihUiit/; i»«par» pre-rdeaae re- 
ports for fidd me and indndes detailed infos mati on on Tocatimal 
ar e<mipliihmniits>, whwihii^iiIjI jEnettovs, prospeetite emploTees, 
and reeoansiendatiMfes to fidd.'^ 

It B aqqmrent that the — «w"«^ in sdiidi tAese duties are perfocmed 
has a eouiderable effect upon the prisoner, botb as to bis possible re- 
halnlitation and tbe length of bis 

In California r 
Aduht AuthorifT ... . ._ . . . _ — 

Paroles in 1944. 

Host of the statutorr prorisaons setting out tbe p - ^^ -^d duties of 
C^lifomia^ Adult Andthoritj are in Penal Code S^^^ '00 through 


3065 and 5075 through 5062. A number of relaited «p<etion«^ such alt 2S40 
and 2081.5. are mattered throughout the Penal CciNde. 

In determining when to parole an inmate, the Adult Authority hm. 
aeeess to case records which are required by Penal Code Section 20S1.5 
to include: 

*'. . . all information received bj the Director off C<Qrrections from 
the courts, probation olfiScers^ sheriffs, police department*, district 
attorneys. State Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investi- 
gation, and other interested agencies and persons. Ca,«e record* 
shall also include a record of diagnostic findic. - ' ' atiion*, 

actions and dispositiojius with respect to cLa'Sstr. .-.anent, 

employment, training, and discipline as related a.^- riii< iiu^iairiuirional 
correctional program followed for each pris-oner, "" 

When the court retains control <*i tine ■<^!?"t#'»i!'^-eng ffjiM'-tflion^ the length 
of a defendant 's sentence dei>ei!- ..j ijjuaxiiBji^a aand 

minima, but also ujjon the judc - - i;eciiJilBjar to has 


Under California's indeterminate sentence system^ in addition to 
statutory maxima and minima.^* the length of the ■sentence is affiected 
by a great many people wiao evaluate the fact* of the case to pmovide 
the records rcKjuired by .Se>c-ti!<>»i WiKi_5_ 

It is important that esu^h ]>er&ons rep." .'iis 

to the prisoner and his par_ .riame. Imbmj' . , - "Jt. 

implied by the word "judicioims,' are imperative m niuikiiiii^ these Judg- 
ments. A prisoner can adjust to a severe i>eaiiaEty; he cannioit a/djoiist Ito 
an unjust penalty. 

The Adult Authority miake*. ,-.-,, ^j 

interview witla <^e.'-h !'?3JiiijLaite aa. -d 

above. In view • ■ ^)iiisands xj'i y, 

it is apparent :__.. , ._ >.>na!L intervit"'- ,_._ _ _ _ __ , ; :'w 

minutes each. Oreat weight, therefore, mnast be given to the findaMigs 
and recommendations c^ontained in the ca,se reciords. This poiimft* up the 
necessity to maintain the highest possibile standainds for Malff recruiit.- 
ment in the Department of >ns. 

In an effort to develop i , parole stani(S;aiPds, the ]M[odeE Penal 

Code of the American Law InsiUiiuiie sunggiest^ that a prftsio>mier he reiLeaseid 
when he is first eligible unless: 

**(1) There is undue risk that he willl mot (eonlfio'iniii tt(0> the feoiiiiidnitflfOflits 
of parole; or 

(2) His release at that timne would undnjily depmereiate the :8erD<ci)iiftsiiiwss)s 
of his crime or pipomote disresp-eiet for Daw; or 

(3) His release would have a sutosttamtDaMy a/dvemse effieelt i&m. praso>m 
discipline; or 

(4) His continued corrtaetionaJl itipaatmiemt or 'n • 'O^r otflner 
training in the institution or umiadaeall ttineafiii^v.^, -.lA «nflll5ifsltaffli- 
tially enhance his capaic-oty to Des/d a ILaw-albfldiiflD^ Dilfie whefSi. re- 
leased at a later 4aAie^ ' ' ^ 

3f A nunatoier of |I»eriiiTti*'« •ln^ rY^v<^ f\-'rv,'-,*.iT xri-".*- •-■ • -- ■■".--nr.T. •^■':~ r,r:V,:,Ti<. 'QfKliltje «. 

number of pi ^. 

» Tappaii. ojk e((. . : : D:S((aJ).. 


In addition, the code sets forth criteria by Avhieh these over-all poli- 
cies can be maintained: 

"(1) The prisoner's personality, incln(lin<:' his niatnrity, stability, 
sense of responsibility and any apparent development in his per- 
sonality which may promote or hinder his conformity to law. 

(2) The adeqnacy of the prisoner's parole plan. 

(3) The prisoner's ability and readiness to assnme obligations and 
nndertake responsibilities. 

(4) The prisoner's intelligence and training. 

(5) The prisoner's family status and whether he has relatives who 
display an interest in him, or Avhether he has other close and 
constructive associations in the community. 

(6) The prisoner's employment history, his occupational skills, and 
the stabilit}' of his last em])loyment. 

(7) The type of residence, neighborhood or commnnitj' in which the 
prisoner plans to live. 

(8) The prisoner's past use of narcotics, or past hal)itual and exces- 
sive use of alcohol. 

(9) The prisoner's mental or physical makeup, including any dis- 
ability or handicaps which may afTect his conformity to law. 

(10) The prisoner's prior criminal record, including the nature and 
circumstances, recency and frequency of previous oifenses. 

(11) The prisoner's attitude toward law and authority. 

(12) The prisoner's conduct in the institution, including particularly 
whether he has taken advantage of the opportunities for con- 
structive activity afforded by the institutional program, whether 
he has been punished for misconduct within six months ju'ior to 
his hearing or reconsideration for parole release, whether he has 
forfeited any reductions of term during his period of imprison- 
ment, and M-hcther such reductions have been restored at the 
time of hearing or reconsideration. 

(l;j) The prisoner's conduct and attitude during any previous ex- 
perience of probation or jiarole and the recenc}' of such experi- 
ence, "^o 

The California Adult Autliority has access to staff re]")orts containing 
all of this information regarding every inmate under the control of the 
Department of Corrections. JMoi-eover, the Adult Authority is made uj) 
of men of outstanding qnalifii-ations and dedication. AVhat then, could 
])ossibly be done to improve the present system? 

In answering this question, the committee would like to call attention 
to three factors: (1) human fallibility; (2) one and two member 
panels; and (3) the lack of any review or appeal procedure.''^ 

(1) In respect to the first factor, we would like to point out that a 
number of offenses involve penalties with an extreme variation 
between the statutory mininunn and maximum ; for exami)le, 

"Tappan, op. cit., p. 73G. 
»' See Appendix C. 


robbery second deg-ree — with a sentence of from one year to life 

The Adult Authority has tlie power to determine and redeter- 
mine the length of an inmate's confinement after he has been in 
prison for six months. In cases with a maximum of five years or 
less, such a determination may be made after 90 days. The 
Adult Authority has worked out a schedule of first appearance 
dates for various otfenses. These can be found in the extreme 
right column of Appendix A. 

The power to choose any sentence from one year to life imi:»ri- 
sonment gives the Adult Authority more discretionary author- 
ity than we believe it should have, especially in view of factors 
2 and 3, as outlined below. 

(2) The second factor involves the natural result of an enormous 
workload for the Adult Authority. The Adult Authority, when 
created in 1944, had three members. The large number of hear- 
ings required soon led to the addition of two members. Still later 
another two members w^ere added. At first the Adult Authority 
met in a group to hold its hearings ; then it split into panels. At 
the present time, some panels consist of one member of the Adult 
Authority and a statf member. On this subject the following quo- 
tations may be of interest : 

"At the end of the period under observation, the chairman, 
a sociology professor, had served five and a half yeRrs ; the oldest 
member, a journalist, seven years; the youngest member, an 
expolice chief, one and a half years. The journalist seemed to 
have the sharpest insight into the reaction of the larger society 
to the crime under consideration ; the law-enforcement man was 
the least likely to be taken in by a smooth but fictitious convict 
story and was more likely to think in terms of deterrence ; the 
sociologist was most concerned with backgrounds, attitudes, and 
future prospects. An advantage of varied backgrounds such as 
these is that they tend to balance each other. The net result will 
probably show^ less variability than sentences set by individual 
judges." ^^ 

"Thirty-three jurisdictions require only a majority for parole 
decisions. From first hand experience in the federal system, the 
author has observed that difiPerences of opinion and voting are 
normally to be expected when several board members study the 
file and take action. Consistent unanimity suggests that deci- 
sions are being made by one member. It was the practice in the 
federal parole system until a few years ago for the member of 
the board who conducted the hearing to determine the action 
to be taken, other members merely signing the docket. Dr. George 
G. Killinger was responsible for changing the practice because 
of the palpable danger of serious errors of judgment on the 
part of a single hearing member. Since that time, a quorum of 
the board studies the files of every prisoner considered for 
parole. The New York State Board of Parole encountered serious 

3^ Norman S. Hayner, "Sentencing by an Administrative Board," Lcno and Contem- 
porary Prohleins. Sentencing, V. 23, No. 3, 1958, pp. 491, 492. 
6 — L-2142 


trouble in IHoT as a result of allowing a single member of the 
board to decide on parole revocation." -^'^ 

(3) The fact that decisions of the Adult Authority are not subject 
to judicial review is a serious pi-oblem even when such decisions 
are made by all tlu' m('iu])ci-s.-'^ Tnder the jirc'sent conditions, 
we find it a deeply disturbing delegation of power. 

Decisions made by a one-member panel are subject to review 
by other members of the board. Nevertheless, if they are re- 
viewed thoroughly, the otiier members must spend as much time 
in the review as thej^ would have spent in the hearing and no 
time is saved bj' the use of a one-member panel. If they are not 
reviewed thoroughly, we feel tliat the prisoner has not received 
the careful consideration lie sliould have had. In any event, the 
prisoner has had an opportunity to present his ease in person, 
to only one member of the Adult Authority. 


Wiien a prisoner is released on parole, he is subject to return uiuler 
two conditions: (1) A new criminal conviction, or (2) violation of a 
condition of parole. 

It is the universal practice in parole to set out certain conditions to 
which the ju-ison inmate must conform if he is to be released on parole. 
These conditions may vary widely, as may the parole officers' tolera- 
tion of minor infractions. 

A parolee who is returned to prison for failure to conform to a 
condition of parole (such as moving or buying a car without permis- 
sion) is known as a "technical violator." 

Since granting of parole is an act of grace, the Adult Authority 
may revoke the parole at any time, subject only to the requirement 
tliat the cause for revocation nmst be stated in the order revoking the 
parole. The written order of any member of the Adult Authority serves 
as a warrant for the return of any parolee. 

It has been suggested that there should be some penalty, short of 
revocation, for certain cases.-*-'' For example, if the parolee finds himself 
in a situation in which he is under gi-eat stress, he might welcome a 
temi)orary stay in some type of readjustment center. At times a parole 
agent may feel that such a procedure would j)revent the connnission of 
a new crime or a serious technical violation. 

Complete revocation of parole is an extreme measure, particuhirly 
so in states which, like California, provide no hearing upon the revoca- 
tion order. This was recognized by the Model Penal Code,-"' which pro- 
vides that the parolee should be advised of the charges against him; 
be given a hearing; and allowed access to counsel in preparing for 
such liearing. In addition, any revocation would be made ui)on substan- 
tial evidence and by a majority vote of the P>oard. 

In evaluating the desirability of such a pi-oceeding, it may be lu-lpful 
to consider a hypothetical case: Inmate John Doe was committed on a 
sentence of robbery, 2d d(>gree. Tliis offense carries a statutory penalty 

•■"Tappan, o;j. cit., p. 728. 

»' See Appendix C. 

'•'' Tapijaii, oi). cit.. p. 742. 

*> Model Penal Code, No. 5, Sec. 305.21. 


of one year to life. After five years, John Doe was released to serve 
five years on parole. Time served on parole is considered a part of his 
sentence. Thus, his sentence had been fixed at a total of ten years. After 
completintJ- fonr years of parole, Doe was retnrned to prison as a vio- 
lator. Upon his return to prison his sentence antomatically reverts to 
the original maximum, in this case life imprisonment. 

It is our belief that Section 305.21 of the Model Penal Code, Draft 
No. 5, should be adopted in California. 

This committee asked the Legislative Counsel whether there is any 
general prohibition in California law against disclosure of records of 
arrest to private persons, e.g., employers. We received the following 
reply : 

"You have asked whether there is any general prohibition in 
California law against disclosure of records of arrest to private 
persons, e.g., employers. 

"There is no such prohibition. 

"The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation ap- 
pears to be restricted in this regard, so that such information could 
be disclosed only to certain public officers (Sec. 11105, Pen. C. ; 
Sec. 13128, Ed. C). In the sex offender registration statute (Sec. 
290, Pen. C), there is a prohibition against inspection, by per- 
sons other than law enforcement officers, of the reports required 
to be filed under that law. However, there is no general law of 
this nature. While it is at least arguable that arrest records are 
not public records which a private person could demand to see 
(see Runyon v. Board, 26 Cal. App. 2d 783), even if that is true 
it does not follow that a public agency possessing such records 
could not voluntarily make the records available to a private 
person. ' ' ^^ 

We recommend that legislation be enacted prohibiting the divulgence 
of records of arrest to any person other than a bona fide law enforce- 
ment officer. 


We are mindful that the existence of arrest records has often re- 
sulted in an unjust handicap for individual citizens. We do not wish 
to support the collection and maintenance of dossiers on individuals. 
We believe, however, that if law enforcement officials will exercise 
greater care in establishing probable cause before making an arrest and 
will record dispositions as recommended in this report, it will be un- 
necessary to resort to the more drastic remedy of destroying arrest 
records in cases which do not end in conviction. 

18 Letter from Office of Legislative Counsel, Sacramento, January 21, 1960. 




Recommendation No. I 

We i\'L'uiuiUL'iid that the provisions contained in A.B. 1852 not be 

Recommendation No. 2 

We reeonuiiend that Government Code Section 27700 be amended 
to make the establishment of a public defender's office mandatory in 
counties of the first through the tenth class. 

One of the measures referred to this committee for interim study 
was A.B. 1852. This bill was introduced by Assemblyman George A. 
Willson at the request of the Criminal Courts Bar of Los Angeles and 
proposes certain changes in tlie law with respect to the services of 
public defenders. The following digest of these proposed changes, pre- 
pared by the office of the Legislative Counsel, appeared on the original 

"Amends Sec. 27706, Gov. C, and Sec. 1203.1, Pen. C. 
"Provides that in any case in which defendant in a criminal 
case is free on bond in the sum of .$1,000 or more, it shall be pre- 
sumed that he is financially able to employ counsel, and the public 
defender shall not be appointed to represent him. l\e(iuir('s appli- 
cant for services of public defender to furnish financial informa- 
tion, and prescribes form therefor. 

"Provides that court may impose as condition of probation the 
payment of a reasonable fee to the public defender for services 
rendered to probationer, to be paid to the probation officer. Pro- 
vides that fees, as well as fines, collected by probation officer as 
condition of probation be paid into county treasury." 

This committee solicited comments and suggestions on the bill from 
21 public defenders throughout California, and from other individuals 
and organizations coiniected in some way with the administration of 
justice. We held a one-day hearing on the bill in Los Angeles on 
November 13, 1959. A list of witnesses who testifieil at that hearing will 
be found in Appendix J. 

Three significant changes would be made by the adoption of A.B. 
1852: (1) mandatory financial statement; (2) posting of bail in the 
amount of $1,000 or more would make defendant ineligible for services 
of i)nblic defender; and (3) court miglit impose charge for services of 
public defender as a condition of pi-obation. Since the .same witness 
often took varying ])()sitions on tliese tliree chauge.s, we shall treat 
them individually. 



(1) Financial Statement 

Subsection (e) of A.B. 1852 sets out a detailed statement of informa- 
tion to be provided by the defendant before any assistance can be 
given him by the public defender. 

Most of the public defenders who responded to the committee's in- 
quiry stated that they alread}^ follow the practice of using a similar 
questionnaire. One objection was expressed upon the basis of added 
cost : 

"The proposed addition requiring that an affidavit be supplied 
has been under study for the last four or five years in this office. 
About four years ago someone made the suggestion this should be 
done. "We asked that an analyst from the county administrative 
office be assigned to check on the feasibility of such procedure. 
Their report indicated that it would cost more than any amount 
saved. In an office such as ours, it would require one man to devote 
his time entirely to this task. The very few people that it may elim- 
inate is so negligible that the cost of having an affidavit would far 
exceed the supposed savings. ' ' ^ 

A number of defense attorneys spoke in favor of a required affidavit. 
One such witness said : 

Q. "Mrs. Koot, did I understand you correctly to say that the 
majority of the defendants that have the public defender rep- 
resent them, can pay the necessary fee? In other words, they do 
have the means and the ability to pay for legal service, but just 
want to get free legal services ? 

A. "That's my opinion. "2 

Mr. Cuff testified that, because of the cursory nature of the examina- 
tion in the superior court, he occasionally gets an assignment of which 
he later asks to be relieved : 

Q. "So the usual case is, he doesn't request that you represent 
him. The court tells you to represent him. 

A. "That's right. 

Q. "Now, in the superior court stage, does the court tell you 
to represent him before the court has conducted an examination 
of the ability to pay ? 

A. "No, he stands up there in court and the judge sees him 
there; he says, 'Have you an attorney?' 'No.' 'Have you any 
money to hire an attorney?' 'No.' Sometimes the fellow is kind 
of a ragamuffin looking fellow, and the courts might ask two or 
three more questions — public defender appointed — is appointed. If 
the man is well-dressed, if he's on bail, the court will very likely 
ask him more questions, more or less to satisfy himself. It was 
pointed out here that Judge Ambrose used to raise his bail. 

Q. "Well, then actually it's a pretty cursorv examination, isn't 

1 Letter from Ellery E. Cuff, Public Defender, County of Los Angeles, July Kl, 1959, 

to Assembly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure. 

2 Testimony of Gladys Towles Root, Attorney, Los Angeles, at Los Angeles hearing 

on November 13, 1959. 


A. "That's right, it pretty near of necessity has to be, bnt as 
long as ^ve get the ease, then Ave make a further examination after 
we get the case. 

Q. "And then do you go back into court and say 'this man is 
able to hire a private counsel ? ' 

A. "That's right, we put it back on the ealcudar and tell the 
court — we generally do it this way to avoid embarrassment to 
everybody'. "We will tell him to get his own attorney — under the 
law, we cannot very well handle him . . . 

Q. "Well, now— 

A. "And usually it's handled automatically then within a week 
or two the attorney will call us up. If the attorney doesn't call us 
up, then we put it on the calendar and advise the court. 

Q. "If he gets his private couusel, then do you go back into 
court and you withdraw from the case ? 

A. "Yes, we make a motion that we be relieved of the case and 
a private attorney be appointed." ^ 

Superior Court eJudge Allen Miller suggested that any extensive 
financial inquiry be made after the time of representation for arraign- 
ment and plea : 

"... My suggestion i,s, you contemplate this bill, with the pos- 
sibility that you would exempt, if you required the affidavit as 
indicated here — that you would exempt the requirements of that 
affidavit at the particular time of representation for arraignment 
and plea, because there isn't time to evaluate it, and that you 
would permit the public defcMider to enter a limited ajipearance, 
as many attorneys do, incidentally, solely for the purpose of ar- 
raignment and plea. Then, later on, after that has been permitted 
for that purpose alone, then you could — the public defender would 
be appointed by court, solely for that purpose and limited for that 
purpose. Then the information could be gathered later on, whether 
he was (jualified — ^then, if in the opinion of the public defender, he 
did have sufficient assets to employ an attorney, then the bill 
otherwise would come into play. But I see some difficulties in re- 
el ni ring the ascertainment of all of these factual things in the 
affidavit, in this short, fast period of time that's necessarj' when 
the man is before you on an arraignment in plea. "^ 

Mr. (Joscoe Farley testified tliat llic State Bar had taken a position 
favoring this subsection : 

" . . . T represent the State I>ai- aiul, as several witnesses have 
pointed out, this bill has three different parts to it really: One, 
the affidavit; two, the provision for restitution; and three, the 
presumption in the ease of bail. Our Board of Governors, there 
are 15 members of our board, as you know, elected by the members 
of the Bar — have considered this bill and they are in favor of two 

"Testimony of lOllery E. Cuff, Public Defender, County of Los Angeles, at Los Angples 

he.irinR, November 1:5, 1959. 
* Te.stiniony of Allen Miller, Judge of Superior Court, Los Angeles County, at Los 

Angeles hearing, November 13, 1959. 


provisions — the provision for the affidavit and the provision for 
restitution. . . . 

Q. "But, what do you think of Judge Miller's suggestion that 
there should be no real inquiry into the financial ability of the 
accused until after the arraignment ? 

A. "I think that might be an excellent idea. What I think, one 
reason the courts like to appoint the public defender, is that the 
deputy is right in the courtroom and there is going to be no delay 
about the case. If the case is put over for three or four days or 
the arraignment is continued three or four days for the defendant 
to get private counsel, he may come back three or four days and 
still doesn't have private counsel, so it delays the arraignment, so 
I think it would be a good idea not to require that, perhaps. ' ' ° 

This committee is of the opinion that the nature and extent of this 
problem do not require legislative action. It appears that public de- 
fenders make a real effort to avoid taking cases which do not qualify 
for their services. If abuses develop in individual cities or counties of 
the state, it appears to us that the proper avenue of appeal is to the 
judicial council or the county board of supervisors. 

(2) Defendants on Bail 

"(f) In any case wherein the defendant in a criminal case is 
free on bail in the sum of $1,000 or more, whether posted by said 
defendant or by some other person, it shall be presumed that said 
defendant is financially able to employ counsel, and the public 
defender shall not be appointed to represent said person. ' ' 

Although a few witnesses testified in favor of this provision, the 
great majority opposed it. Speaking for the State Bar, Goscoe Farley 

"... the board does not favor the presumption in the case of 
bail. Now, I might speak about that part first, if I may. It seems 
to me that this may be read as something more than a mere pre- 
sumption, because it provides that in the case of bail of a thousand 
dollars or more, the public defender shall not be appointed, etc. 
It has two prongs to it, and I'm reading on page 3, of course, 
lines 23 to 27. It reads that : In the case of bail of a thousand dol- 
lars or more, number one, there is a presumption ; and number 
two, the public defender shall not be appointed. So it could be 
read, I believe, that this is an absolute prohibition, but of course, 
if that 's not the intent, it could easily be changed to a presumption 
which would be rebuttable, but our board of governors felt that 
bail is something so important to not only the defendant, but to 
society in general, that nothing and not the slightest hurdle should 
be put in the way of the defendant's being able to obtain bail, and 
the effect of this might be or would be in some eases, of a defend- 
ant having to decide whether he 's going to use his limited financial 
means to obtain bail, or to obtain counsel, and it would seem to 
be better for the defendant and better for society because of 
permitting the defendant to earn a livelihood and support his 

^ Testimony of Goscoe Farley, Legislative Representative, the State Bar of California, 
San Francisco, at Los Angeles hearing, November 13, 1959. 


family and not be a public charge in jail, that he should certainly 
be encourajred to use his assets to obtain his liberty on bail." '' 

This subdivision drew almost unanimous disapproval from tlie public 
defenders who answered the committee's questions re<iardin<»- the bill. 
One typical connnent on this subsection was made l)y (Jeorpe Nye, 
Public Defender of Alameda County: 

"Subdivision (f) seems to me to be most ill-advised. "We see 
many cases in which friends, employers or lejrally nonresponsible 
relatives bail prisoners out, but thereafter either cannot or will 
not advance funds for an attorney's fee. The proposed presump- 
tion, if conclusive, would force many defendants to jio to trial 
without a lawyer, unless some attorney contributed his time with- 
out charfre. Even then there would be no provision for the ex- 
penses of invest ijrat ion and so forth. 

"A man whose bail is $1,000 is often released because his friends 
have scrai^ed together $40 or so toAvard the 10 percent premium 
required by the bondsman, who "fives credit for the balance of the 
$100. The e.\])enditure of this much money is no indication that 
a reasonable fee of pei'haps hundreds of dollars can also be paid. 
Only a lawyer who Avould have handled the case for the $40 can 
feel that he has been deprived of a part of his practice. It is a 
crying shame that any lawyer can become so exercised at the sight 
of these petty sums being spent on bail. One is bound to remember 
tliat abuses by a few lawyers led to the establishment of the pub- 
lic defender system in the first place. A partial retui-n to the con- 
ditions previously existing would do great harm to the bar's public 
relations." "^ 

A Californian with many years experience in the field of law, both 
as a district attorney and later, as a teacher, filed the following objec- 
tion with the committee : 

"My reaction would be strongly against this recommenda- 
tion. . . . 

"... let me tell you why I am ojiposed to the assumption that 
a defendant who is released on bail should not be eligible for the 
services of a public defender. I understand that frecpiently bail 
is put up by an employer in order to keep a man on the job and 
to protect him in the performance of his work. This seems a very 
commendable action upon the i)art of the employer and one wiiicli 
should be encouraged rather than discouraged because an employer, 
in most cases, would not be willing to i)ay the cost of an attorney 
and the burden would fall back upon his employee. The result 
might be, in many cases, that a man would lose his job, his family 
would become a public charge, and he, a loafer in jail waiting the 
long process of trial. T understand that the present cost of a bail 
bond ]>i-emium is approximately 10 jM'rcent which on a $1,000 bond 
would be $100. This is a much snudler sum than it would cost to 
em])loy an attorney and if the choice lay between staying in jail 
and finding money to \my an attorney, the cost of which would 

<^ I hill. 

"< Letter from Oeorge Nye, Public Defender, Alameda County, to Assembly Interim 
Committee on Criminal Procedure, July 22. 1959. 


amount to a niininnim of $200 to $250, and in the case of a jurj- 
trial miiilit run up into the thousands, against paying' $100 prem- 
ium on a bail bond, the alternative certainly would be in favor 
of the bail bond — from the point of view of the accused person. 
From the point of view of the county, if the accused had a family, 
the cost of the family on relief would certainly be far more than 
the cost accrued by the public defender's office in defending the 
accused person. Or if the result were to force the mother to seek 
employment, the result would be an unsupervised home and the 
imminent probability of juvenile delinquency, again with the 
potential of expense to the county. 

"Application of the presumption proposed in the new bill would 
encourage shiftlessness upon the part of the accused, a willing- 
ness to spend his time in jail to avoid the responsibility of employ- 
ment and the family, w^hich would certainly not be desirable from 
any point of view. 

"Such a rule of thumb in the administration of justice it seems 
to me is highly unwnse in any event. If it were thought desirable 
to put discretion in the hands of someone other than the public 
defender himself to determine whether he should represent an 
accused person, it would be much better to put it into the hands 
of the judge where, as a matter of fact, I understand it now fre- 
quently rests. When the public defender decides that the case is 
not one in which he should appear, and the judge decides that it is 
one in which the accused is entitled to counsel, and appoints a 
lawyer to defend at a much greater cost to the county, as I am 
sure the records will reveal. ' ' ^ 

This committee believes that the adoption of this provision, subsec- 
tion (f), would result in unfortunate consequences which would not 
be outweighed by any advantages to be gained. We recommend against 
its adoption. 

(3) Fee as Condifion of Probation 

The proposed change in Section 1203.1 is : 

"In addition to any other terms and conditions the court may 
impose as a condition of probation, in those cases in which the 
defendant has been represented by the public defender, the court 
may in its discretion fix and determine a reasonable fee to be 
paid for the services of the public defender, and order that the 
same be paid by the defendant to the probation officer at such 
times and in such amounts as the court deems reasonable. ' ' 

The Board of Governors of the State Bar has taken a position in 
favor of this subsection and a number of attorneys supported the pro- 
posal at the Los Angeles hearing. One of these, Mrs. Gladys Towles 
Root, testified as follows : 

Q. "Well, that w^as my point. You don't have any objection 

then, I take it, to the court fixing the fee 

A. "Not at all . . . 

s Letter from Justin MUler, Attorney, Los Angeles, to Assembly Interim Committee 
on Criminal Procedure, Nov. 5, 1959. 


Q. " in criminal cases where — at least where it's marginal 

as to whether a man really can afford the services of his own 
attorney, or whetlicr it's a ])rop(n' case for tlie public defender. 

A. "I certainly believe that that is (juite adequate. There's noth- 
ing wrong with it at all, and particularly where it's made a part 
or a condition of the probation. In other words, restitution, if it 
isn't paid, they can be violated and I know that in two or three 
instances. Judge . . . when tlie record could be searched and could 
be found where they didn't pay the fee — they were violated. I 
say that no man is going to be indigent forever. I say that, give 
them maybe this year or the second year, that they have to go to 
work sometime and, as long as the}' have to work, there is no 
reason why a person couldn't pay so much per week. Why should 
the taxpayers pay it — they get into trouble. 

Q. "You testified, I believe that judge ... as a condition of 
probation, at times required the defendant to pay so much a 
montii for — to his attorney for his fee. 

A. "That is correct. 

Q. "Now that, I suppose, doesn't require any legislation. If the 
judges can do it now, why they can continue to do it, but appar- 
ently under the existing law, a judge may not re<iuire a sum to be 
paid to the public defender's office 

A. "That's the point. 

Q. "And this is the proposal here that the judges or the courts 
be given this power . . . 

A. "For the reason that the judges do not do it privately be- 
cause they say they have a public defender's office, why should 
we add to that — in other words, they just carte blanche appoint 
the public defender's office. How many times do you walk up 
here to Department lOO and see a man on bail that has the i)ublic 
defender's office? Now if he can make bail and he's working, 
whether his mother made the bail or his uncle made the bail or 
whoever made the bail, he has to make some money to eat on. If he 
didn't have this liberty, he wouldn't be making that money to eat 
on; therefore, let him pay as much for his liberty as it is what 
he's going to eat out of what's he's making every week. Is that 
reasonable ? ' ' " 

The Public Defender of Los Angeles County stated that tlie court 
is already in a i)osition to make such an order if it sees fit : 

"Now, about four years ago. Judge . . . here, said tliat he 
thought that several of the men during the j'car could have em- 
ployed a counsel, because he found that they had been earning a 
pretty good salary, consistent to the public. All they asked the 
court to do if they find that to be true, to impose a fine which 
the law already allows — to impose that fine and that in all those 
cases they found the court did impose a fine, and ordered restitu- 
tion too, and all lliis he ordered, as strange as it may seem, to be 
paid to the jji-obation officer, in such sums and at such times as 

•Testimony of Gladys Towles Root, Attorney, Los Angeles, at Los Angeles hearing 
on November 13, 1959. 


the probation officer may direct. T said, 'Why did you put that iu 
there? If he had the money iu tlie first place, why didn't you just 
fine him, and he coukl pay it right uowT 'Well,' he said, 'you 
have to give the fellow a chance to earn his money. ' Well, that 's 
true. The man didn 't have the money and he didn 't have the money 
at the time of the probation hearing. So he had to be pulled back 
in the future. Now, whether you feel you'd like to put that as a 
proviso in the law, that it be paid to the public defender — I don't 
like to have it paid to the public defender, because that woidd 
necessitate us setting up a separate record. I 'd rather see it paid 
into the public funds and a separate organization account for 
that money rather than burden us with that particular problem. 
We would like to keep our hands off the finances, just as much as 
we possibly can, because there's where too much trouble ensues 
frequently — working with finances. ' ' ^^ 

Other public defenders commented on this proposal as follows : 

"As to the next to last paragraph in proposed Sec. 1203.1, give 
some thought to the philosophy behind the office of the public 
defender. If the man is going to be made to pay for the services 
of his defense counsel, then why not provide that he may choose 
his own. And, then let him pay for such service through the proba- 
tion office. If he is unable to pay, are you going to provide that 
the board of supervisors pay such counsel. Isn't this just what 
we were trying to obviate when we set up public defender of- 

"The amendment to Section 1203.1 would probably be harmless, 
unless it led to an assumption by the courts that fees should be 
collected through the probation officer in all cases. I have heard 
that this development has occurred in connection with the assigned- 
eounsel-for-the-indigent system of Michigan, and as a result that 
the rehabilitative aspects of their probation program have badly 
deteriorated, with the probation officers becoming mere collection 
agents. However, I don't know a great deal about this matter." ^- 

"If we have once truly determined that the man is financially 
unable to pay then it appears to me that that principle should 
govern. At least 90 percent of my clients could not make a sub- 
stantial payment within the usual three-year term of probation 
and at least half that number could not make anv payment at 

The committee is of the opinion that any such repayment required 
by a court should be made to the general fund of the county rather 
than to a specific fund to be handled by either the public defender or 
the probation officer. Generally, where care is taken to insure eligibil- 
ity in the first instance, we feel that the adoption of this procedure 
would be unwise. 

lo Testimony of EUery E. Cuff, Public Defender, County of Los Angeles, at Los An- 
geles hearing, November 13, 1959. 

'i Letter from Leonard A. Thomas, Public Defender, County of Marin, to Assembly 
Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure, August ol, lOTiO. 

1- Letter from George Nye, Public Defender, Alameda County, to Assembly Interim 
Committee on Criminal Procedure, July 22, 1959. 

^^ Letter from Donald R. Fi-etz, Public Defender of Merced County, to Assembly In- 
terim Committee on Criminal Procedure, November 4, 1959. 



Our luisdomoanor laws, forinulatcMl iii 1878^ contemplated that low 
grade misdemeanors would be handled by local justices of the peace. 
These were crimes involving penalties of not more than six months in 
jail. The high grade misdemeanors in which the penalty could be over 
six months, were handled by the superior court. When the municipal 
court laws went into effect these lower courts were given jurisdiction of 
all the high grade misdemeanors with the single exception of contribut- 
ing to the delinquency of a minor. 

The services of the public defender, as outlined in (iovcrnment Code 
Section 27706, are limited to otfenses triable in the superior court. In 
addition, the establishment of a public defender's office is purely vol- 
untary under Government Code Section 27700 ^^ and many counties, 
including some of the larger ones, offer no public defender services 
for any offense. We are aware of only four areas '•"' of the State which 
provide the services of a public defender in misdemeanor cases. 

All per.sons accused of crime in any court in tlie State have a right 
to counsel.'*' We find that this right is not safeguarded in all areas 
of the State of California. Very often persons charged with a mis- 
demeanor offense are not informed by the court of their right to 

The Public Defender of the City and County of San Francisco has 
represented indigents in misdemeanor cases since 1955. He says of this 
phase of his operations : 

"Experience has shown that there is a greater possibility of a 
miscarriage of justice at the misdemeanor level than at the felony 
level. This is due to the fact that before a trial and conviction in a 
felony case there must have been a preliminary screening of the 
evidence before a grand jury or a committing magistrate. 

"It is generally conceded that a person charged with a mis- 
denu^anor who is unable to employ counsel has the same right to a 
fair trial and an aikuiuate presentation of his defense as a per- 
son cliarged with a more serious offense. Any other i)rocedure 
would prevent ett'ective administration of justice, as well as a 
failure to provide e(iual justice for all. 

"... Serious and unanticipated consequences may follow when 
an uninformed and inexperienced person pleads guilty to save 
time or trouble or to win an expected suspension of sentence. . . . 

"Since man}- serious crimes are designated as misdenu^anors 
and carry severe peiuUties, our experience has convinced us that 
the constant presence in the municipal court of a deputy public 
defender greatly decreases the possibility of any miscarriage of 
justice, and aids in the speedy and equitable disposition of many 
cases. " ' ' 

This committee is of the opinion that equal protection of the law 
will not be a reality until a ]ioor man has, as nearly as po.ssible, the 

"See Appendix K. 

'•■■City <>l" Ivos Angeles, City of Lone Beach, City and County of San Francisco, and 

Alameda Countv. 
'«See Amcndmiiit VI United States Constitution; California Con.<!titution, Art. I, Sec. 

1.5; I'cuplc V. Maltsini. .51 Cal. 2d 777. 788-790; In re Newbem, l(i8 C.A. 2d 472. 
'' San P'rancisco, City and County, Public Defender. Annual Report, July 1, 1958-June 

30, l'J59. 


same opportunity in litio^ation as a rich man. Tn this connection we 
repeat the words of William D. Guthrie : 

"It must always be borne in mind that our system of democracy 
could not long endure if the poor in our populous and congested 
cities became convinced that they were being denied redress, pro- 
tection, and equality before the law, because of inability to pay 
for legal services . . ."i^ 

Our democratic society would be greatly strengthened by an im- 
provement in the administration of justice as it atfects those who are 
financially unable to defend themselves. California has one of the best 
public defender systems in the country. The costs have been negligible 
in view of the results achieved. 

Some advocates have even contended that the provision of a public 
defender's office effects a saving to the county: 

"(Office of public defender expedites trial and disposition of 
case and by eliminating unnecessary trials and waiving jury trials 
where that can be legitimately done effects a tremendous annual 
savings to the county, far in excess of expense of maintaining 
office of public defender.) " '^ 

The following chart of cost per case of public defenders' offices, is 
the latest comparative data in our possession : 



Xiniiher of Cost per 

Staie and roiniii/ Populaiion Approprinfion applications case 


Alameda 852.700 $78,540 1,889 $42 

Imperial 150,000 9,400 

Inyo 12,000 3,000 50 72 

Los Angeles 5,400,000 300,000 8,268 crim. 

20,081 civil 11 

Marin 115,000 11,898 116 103 

Oranse 350.000 34,000 798 43 

Riverside 200,000 13.000 220 59 

Sacramento 400,000 25.000 872 29 

San Francisco 1,000,000 85,000 

San Joaquin 225,000 21.000 

Sutter 27,000 2,000 65 31 

Tulare 145,000 7,711 453 17 

Yolo 52,000 5,100 

Yuba 35,000 5,000 264 19 

Lons Beach Citv 300,000 13,913 2,489 6 

Los Anseles Citv ___ 2.000,000 103,560 133,426 crim. 

17,295 civil 0.70 

In comparing the figures of Los Angeles County with those of the City 
of Los Angeles it is helpful to consider the following testimony: 

"Before passing on to anything else. I would like to comment 
upon Mr. O'Connell's comparison of $11, in a report of 1955, and 
similar reports of 70^. Those two cannot be reconciled. For one 
thing, the county public defender, when they take a case, it's a 

i« Foreword to Lance of Justice, John M. Maguire, Harvard University Press, 1928. 
"Rhode Island. Legi.slative Reference Bureau in 1934. Public Defender. Analysts of 
Laivs of the Several States. 


case, the same as a private attorney handles a ease. lie miglit have 
to interview that fellow one time, 10 times, or 50 times. And the 
trial may last one day or it mifrht last weeks; it's still one case. 
In the city's public defender's office, I, at one time, asked him my- 
self, ' How do you <;et such astronomical fi*rures here of the uuniber 
of clients you have?' Why, I was sure he didn't have that many. 
He said, 'AYell, every time we interview a fellow, every time we 
stand up in court for that fellow, it is classified as a different case. ' 
So, it's pretty hard to reconcile the two. That troubled me so much 
that I later on put in all my reports what constituted a case, what 
we considered a, so that there would be no confusion in trying 
to compare with some other group of statistician's records."-" 

The chart does not show cost figures for the City and County of San 
Francisco. We do not have those figures for the same year, but for the 
year lf)58-195f) that office submits a cost per case figui-e of $21 and a 
cost per api>earanct^ figure of $8.13.-'^ 

The problem of providing coun.sel for the fre(|ueiitly arrested chronic 
alcoholic couUl be mitigated by adopting a treatment approach to alco- 
holics instead of the present arrest-release merry-go-round. 

=» Testimony of Ellery E. Cuff, Public Defender, County of Los Angeles, at Lcs An- 
geles hearing, Xoveml)er II'., li'.'iO. 

21 San Francisco, City and County. Public Defender. Annual Report, July 1, 1958-June 
30, 1959. 






A A Apjyeur 

(in Mos.) 










Abortion 274 

Annoying- Children 647a 

Aryon (Inirn dwelling- house, etc.) 447.1 

Arson ( Imrn public bldgs., etc.) 44Sa 

Anson (burn personal prop., etc.) 449a 

Arson (burn insured prop., etc.) 450a 

Attempt to Commit Arson 451a 

Other Attempts ( excluding Escape, Fict. check 
and Forg. as indicated below) If Crime At- 
tempted is Punishable l),v SP Sentence of : 

(1) 5 Yrs. or More But Less Than Life___ 664.1 

(2) Life, Indt Life, or Death 664.1 

(.S) Max. SP Term of Less Than 5 Yrs. ___ 664.2 

Assault With Intent To Commit : 

(1) Murder 217 

(2) Rape, Mayhem, Robb or Crim vs. Nature 220 

(3) Other Felonies Not In Sec. 220 221 

Assault With : 

(1) A Dead Weap or Other Means 
Likely/Harm 245 

(2) Caustic Chemicals 244 

(3) A Deadly Weapon By Life Convict 4500 

Bigamy 281 

Bookmaking 337a 

Bring Narc or Liquor Into Prison or Jail 4573 

Bring Expl or Firearms Into Prison or Jail 4574 

Burglary 1st Degree 459 

Burglary 2nd Degree 459 

Burn Insured Property 548 

Burn Bridge. Stacked Grain, Etc. 600 

Burn Growing Grain, Trees, Etc. 600.5 

Checks, Fict. (Including attempts) 476 

Checks, NSF 476a 

Child Stealing 278 

Compounding a Crime 153.1 

Compounding a Crime 153.2 

Crime vs. Nature 286 

Crime vs. Children Under 14 Yrs of Age 288 

Desertion of Minor Child 271 

Embezzlement 503 

Escape From Reformatory, Etc. (Including at- 
tempts) 107 

Escape From State Prison (Including Attempts) 4530 
Escape From Prison Custody (Including At- 
tempts) 1 4531 

Escape, County-City Facility (Including at- 
tempts) 4532b 

Escape, Countv-Citv Facility, with force (Incl. 

Att.) 4532a 

Escape. County-City Facility w/o force (Incl. 

Att.) 4532a 

Extortion 518 

Felony, Where I'enalty Not Otherwise Prescribed 18 

Forgery (Including attempts) 470 

Grand Theft (Includes GTA or GTP) 487 

6 mo-5 
6 mo-10 
6 mo-3 
6 mo-5 

6 mo-^ Max 
6 mo-20 12 

NONE (Misdmr) 

6 mo-14 








6 mo-14 



8 Y or 



6 mo-10 


6 mo-1 


6 nio-5 






6 mo-15 


6 mo-10 


6 mo-10 


6 mo-10 


6 mo-14 


6 mo-14 


6 mo~20 


6 mo-5 


6 mo-3 






6 mo-1 


6 mo-10 


6 mo~10 






6 mo-10 


6 mo-10 


6 mo-5 


6 mo-10 


6 mo-5 


6 mo-14 


6 mo-10 






Hostajce Held liy Prisoner 4.103 

Incest 28r> 

Imlcteiit Exposure (w/like Prior or 288-PC 

Prior) 311.1 

Iiijiiriii;; Prison or Jail 606 

Ki<liiaiiiiin« 207 

Kidiiaiipiiif,' For Ransom, Reward, Etc. 209 

Kidiiiippinf,', Victim Suffers Bodily Injury 209 

Kidnapping (pose as Kidnapper) 210 

Lewd & Lascivious Conduct 2S.S 

Manslaughter 192.1-2 

-Manslaujibter — By Motor Vehicle 192.3 

Mayhem 203 

.Murder 1st Degree 187 

Murder 2nd Degree 187 

Perjury 118 

Petit Theft With Prior Petit Theft 666.3 

Petit Theft With Prior Felony Conviction 667 

Prostitution— Placing Wife in House of 266g 

Rape (E.xcept Statutory) 261 

Rape (Statutory) 261.1 

Rol.itery 1st Degree 211 

Rohhery 2nd Degree 211 

Receiving Stolen Property 496 

Receiving Stolen Property (Junk Dealer) 496a 

Sex Perversion (See following exceptions) 288a 

If Ahs. states victim under 14 & S/10 yrs. older 

or S compelle<l victim hy force, duress, etc. 288a 

Sodomy 286 

Fail to Stop and Render Aid After Accident— 20001 

Driving While Drunk 23101 

Theft of Vehicle lOSol 

Possession of Narcotics ll.j00 

With Prior Narc Conv IIHW) 

Sale (Trans.. Furn.. Adm., etc.) Narc llHOl 

With Prior Narc C<mv 11501 

Inihue .Minor to Violate Narc Law lir>()2 

With Prior Narc Conv 11.".02 

Sell (Del.. Furn.. Adm.) Sub.stance in Lieu of 

Narc UrAr.i 

possess ( Plant, cultivate) Marijuana IIHSO 

With Prior Narc Conv IIHSO 

Sale (Transp., Furn., Adm., etc.) Marijuana lir>31 

Wirli Prior Narc Conv lir>31 

Induce .Minor to Violate Marijuana Laws ll.">32 

With Pri(u- Narc Conv ll.")32 

Plant (Cullivatel Peyote lir»40 

With Prior Narc Conv 11540 

Operate Place for Cse <ir Sale of Narcotics ll."»."(7 

With Prior Narc Conv n."M7 

Forg. Narc. Prescription 11715 

With Prior Narc Conv 11715 

* Initial 
.4.4 Appear 
lenience (in Mos.) 

5-LIFE 21 

1-.50 12 



6 mo-.5 





7 Yrs. 


10 Yrs. 

w/o I'AR 


lS-7 Yrs. 

or LIFE 





6 mo-5 


6 mo-14 



7 Y or 




3 Yrs. 

6 mo-14 


6 mo-5 


6 mo— 5 


6 mo-10 




6 mo-50 






6 mo-10 


6 mo-5 


6 mo-15 








6 mo-5 


6 mo-5 


6 mo-5 


.JULY 1, 19.59 

6 mo-10 







3 Yrs. 

.5 LIFE 



3 Yrs. 

(i ino-10 


6 nu)-10 







3 Yrs. 




3 Yrs. 

6 mo-10 




(5 mo-10 




6 mo-6 


6 nio-10 







TiiinpcriuK With N:inu' on Firearms ]2()!>0 

Mtv., Sale, Poss. of P.laclvjaclx, etc. 12020 

Poss. of Firearm by Alien, Addict, Ex-Felon 12021 


() mo-5 
(■) mo-5 
6 mo-5 

* Initial 
A A Appeur 
(in Mos.) 


*NOTE : Time shown for "Liitial A. A. Ainiearance" applies to first term prisoners 
whose cases are not aj;j;ravated by weapons, priors, or CS sentences. The 
Adnlt Authority may order an earlier appearance as provided in A.A. 
Res. No. 184: See attached chart for the various ramifications. 

Initial A. A. Appearance— Indeterminate Sentences 

(See AA Res 184 or Departmental Chart for Life Sentences) 

The "jNIinimum Term," as used below, is that which is aggravated by charging and 
proving prior felony convictions and/or deadly weapons or consecutive sentences. 


A A Appear 



Restricted to 

1) 5 MOS 



Offense is Bookmaking. Escape w/o Force under Sec 
4532a PC and all PT cases 
EXCEPTION : CS sentences 

2) 7 MOS 


INIaximum term is 5 years or less. 
EXCEPTIONS : Para. 1, above and CS sentences. 

3) 10 MOS 


Minimum term is below 3 years. 
Maximum term is 15 years or less. 
EXCEPTIONS : Para. 1 and 2, above and CS sen- 

4) 12 MOS 


Minimum term is below 3 years. 
Maximum term exceeds 15 years. 
EXCEPTION: CS sentences. 

5) 15 MOS 


Minimum term is below 3 years. 

Any maximum term, i.e., 1-LIFE 

EXCEPTIONS: I'ara. 1. above and CS sentences. 

6) IS MOS 



Minimum term is 3 years or more but is below 10 
years, including all CS sentences if min. term is be- 
low 10 years. 
EXCEPTION: Murder Second. 

7) 21 MOS 
(From date 
of crime. ) 


For crimes committed in prison (See AA Res 184 for 
i-amifications ) . 

EXCEPTION : Escape is 21 mos. from date of return 
WNT for escape. 

8) 3 YRS 



Murder second cases 

Minimum term is 10 years or more. 

NOTE : If the Abstract of Judgment recites that the Court specified a 6-Mos. Min- 
imum Term under Sec. 1202b P.C., the minimum term is recorded at 6 
mos'. (i.e., 6 mo-LIFE for Robb. 1st, instead of 5-LIFE) and the foregoing 

If consecutive sentences are involved, the minimum term is likewise re- 
corded at 6 mos. but Initial Board Appearance is 18 mos., since Sec. 3043 
P.C. recites that such prisoners cannot be paroled until 2 years are served 
in prison. 




For Lf},'islative History of Act, set- p. 88S>1 

PUBLIC liAW S.->-752; 72 STAT. 845 

[II.J. Res. 424] 

Joint Resolution to improve the administration of justice by authorizing the 
Judicial Conference of the United States to establish institutes and joint councils 
on sentencing, to provide additional methods of sentencing, and for other 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That: 

Chapter 15 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding 
the following section '- : 
"§ 334. Institutes and joint eouncils on sentencing 

"(a) In the interest of uniformity in sentencing procedures, there 
is hereby authorized to be established under the auspices of the Judicial 
Conference of the United States, institutes and joint councils on sen- 
tencing. The Attorne}^ General and/or the chief judge of each circuit 
may at any time recpiest, through the Director of the Administrative 
Office of the United States Courts, the Judicial Conference to convene 
such institutes and joint councils for the purpose of studying, dis- 
cussing, and formulating the objectives, policies, standards, and criteria 
for sentencing those convicted of crimes and offenses in the courts of 
the United States. The agenda of the institutes and joint councils may 
include but shall not be limited to: (1) The development of standards 
for the content and utilization of presentence reports; (2) the estab- 
lishment of factors to be used in selecting cases for special study and 
observation in prescribed diagnostic clinics; (3) the determination of 
the importance of psychiatric, emotional, sociological and physiological 
factors involved in crime and their bearing upon sentences; (4) the 
discussion of special sentencing problems in unusual cases such as 
treason, violation of public trust, subversion, or involving abnormal 
sex behavior, addiction to drugs or alcohol, and mental or physical 
handicaps; (5) the formulation of sentencing principles and criteria 
which will assist in ])r()m()ting the eipiitable administration of the crim- 
inal laws of the United States. 

"(b) After the Judicial Conference has apjiroved the tinu', place, 
participants, agenda, and otlier arrangements for such institutes and 
joint councils, the chief judge of each circuit is authorized to invite 
the attendance of district judges under conditions which he thinks 
proper and which will not unduly delay the work of the courts. 

"(c) The Attorney (Jeiu'ral is authorized to select and direct the 
attendance at such institutes and meetings of United States attorneys 
and other otHicials of the I)ci)artm('nt of Justice aud may invite the 
participation of otlier interested Federal officers. He nuiy also invite 
specialists in senteJicing methods, criminologists, psychiatrists, penolo- 
gists, and others to participate in the i)roceedings. 

"(d) The expenses of attendance of judges shall be paid from ap- 
plicable appropriations for the judiciary of the United States. The ex- 

^2% U.S.C.A. § 334. 


penses connected with the preparation of the plans and agenda for the 
conference and for the travel and other expenses incident to the attend- 
ance of officials and other participants invited by the Attorney General 
shall be paid from applicable appropriations of the Department of 

Sec. 2. The chapter analysis of chapter 15 of title 28, United States 
Code is amended by inserting before section 331 the following item: 
''334. Institutes and joint councils on sentencing." 

Sec. 3. That chapter 311 of title 18, United States Code is amended 
by adding the following section ^^ : 
"§ 4208. Fixing eligibility for parole at time of sentencing 

"(a) Upon entering a judgment of conviction, the court having 
jurisdiction to impose sentence, when in its opinion the ends of justice 
and best interests of the public recpiire that the defendant be sentenced 
to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, may (1) designate 
in the sentence of imprisonment imposed a minimum term at the ex- 
piration of which the prisoner shall become eligible for parole, which 
term may be less than, but shall not be more than one-third of the 
maximum sentence imposed by the court, or (2) the court may fix the 
maximum sentence of imprisonment to be served in which event the 
court may specify that the prisoner may become eligible for parole at 
such time as the board of parole may determine. 

"(b) If the court desires more detailed information as a basis for 
determining the sentence to be imposed, the court may commit the de- 
fendant to the custody of the Attorney General, which commitment 
shall be deemed to be for the maximum sentence of imprisonment pre- 
scribed by law, for a study as described in subsection (c) hereof. The 
results of such study, together with any recommendations which the 
Director of the Bureau of Prisons believes would be helpful in deter- 
mining the disposition of the case, shall be furnished to the court within 
three months unless the court grants time, not to exceed an additional 
three months, for further study. After receiving such reports and rec- 
ommendations, the court may in its discretion: (1) Place the prisoner 
on probation as authorized hy section 3651 of this title, or (2) affirm 
the sentence of imprisonment originally imposed, or reduce the sentenc^ 
of imprisonment, and commit the offender under any applicable provi- 
sion of law. The term of the sentence shall run from date of original 
commitment under this section. 

"(c) Upon commitment of a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment 
under the provisions of subsection (a), the Director, under such reg- 
ulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, shall cause a com- 
plete study to be made of the prisoner and shall furnish to the board 
of parole a summary report together with any recommendations 
which in his opinion would be helpful in determining the suitability 
of the prisoner for parole. This report may include but shall not be 
limited to data regarding the prisoner's previous delinquency or crim- 
inal experience, pertinent circumstances of his social background, 
his capabilities, his mental and physical health, and such other fac- 
tors as may be considered pertinent. The board of parole may make 
such other investigation as it may deem necessary. 

13 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208. 


"It shall be tlic duty of the various probatiou olticers aud ^overn- 
iiicnl bureaus and agreneies to furnish the board of parole informa- 
tion coneerninp: the prisoner, and. whenever not incompatible with 
the public interest, their views and reconnnendations with respect to 
the parole dis])osition of his case. 

" (d) The board of parole having: jui-isdiction of the ])arolce may 
promul<!ate rules and reuulations for the supervision, discharge from 
su])ervision, or recommitment of parole prisoners." 

See. 4. That chapter 311 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
bv addin<r the followinjr section : ^"* 
"'§ 4209. Younfr adult offenders 

"Tn the case of a defendant who has attained his twenty-second 
bii-thday but has not attained his twenty-sixth birthday at the time 
of conviction, if, after takin<>' into considci-ation the previous record 
of the defendant as to dclinfpiency or criminal experience, his social 
back<rround, capabilities, mental and physical health, and such other 
factors as may be considered pertinent, the court finds that there is 
reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant will benefit from 
the treatment provided under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (18 
U.S.C. Chap. 402) sentence may be imi)osed pursuant to the provisions 
of such act." 

Sec. o. The chapter analysis of chapter '.Ul of title IS is amended 
by inserting before section 4201 the following items: 

"4208. Fixing eligibilitv for parole at time of sentencing. 

"4209. Young adult offenders." 

Sec. 6. Sections .3 and 4 of this act shall apply in the continental 
Ignited States other than Alaska, and in the District of Columbia so 
far as they relate to persons charged with or convicted of offenses 
under any law of the ITnited States not apiilicable exclusively to the 
District of Columbia. 

Sec. 7. This act does not ajiply to any offense for which there is 
provided a mandatory penalty. 

Approved August 25. 1958. 


Tile managers on the part of the House at the conference on the 
disagi-eeing votes of the two houses on amendments of the Senate 
to tlie joint resolution (II. J. Ives. 424) to improve the administration of 
justice authorizing the Judicial Conference of the United States to 
establish institutes and joint councils on sentencing, to provide addi- 
tional methods of sentencing, and for other purposes, submit the fol- 
lowing statement in explanation of tJK- effect of the action agreed upon 
by the conferees and i-econnnended in the aei-oinpanying conference 
report : 

The Senate amendments to the instant joint resolution ( II. .I.Ives. 424) 
restore the additional sentencing procedures which were embodied in 
section 3 of the resolution as it was introduced and as it was favor- 
ably reported by the House Connnittee on the Judiciary. This section 
provides the chief means by which the judiciary and the executive 
branches can co-ordinate efforts to protect tlie public l)y formulating 

» 18 U.S.C.A. § 4209. 


sentences which carry out more fully the purposes of deterrence, inca- 
pacitation, and reformation. 

The purpose of the principal Senate amendment (sec. 8) is to pro- 
vide the court with optional procedures which will enable it to impose 
sentences indeterminate in nature. This will i)ermit the court, at its dis- 
cretion, to share with the executive branch responsibility for determin- 
ing how long a period a jirisoner should actually serve. The court will 
be authorized to impose a term of imprisonment either under the exist- 
ing definite sentencing system, or fix the maximum term of the sentence 
and (1) direct that the prisoner shall be eligible for parole at any time 
up to one-third this maximum, as now provided by law, or (2) specify 
that the Board of Parole shall decide when the prisoner will be con- 
sidered for parole. In other words, if a court is so disposed, it may give 
the Parole Board greater latitude in a particular case or, if it is not 
so inclined, may follow the present sentencing system. 

This section will also permit the court, in particularly complex cases, 
to commit the defendant to the Attorney General for a three- to six- 
month period for study and observation. After the court receives a 
summary' of the Attorney General's findings it may impose final sen- 
tence under any applicable statute. The net result of this provision is to 
extend to a maximum period of six months in selected cases the court 's 
power to modify the sentence, now restricted to 60 days under rule 35, 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (18 U.S.C., ch. 237). 

This section will further authorize the Board of Parole to promul- 
gate rules and regulations for the supervision, discharge from super- 
vision, or recommitment of paroled prisoners. The board now controls 
such matters and this section merely spells out in detail its authoriza- 
tion to make regulations covering them. 

The proposed amendment, together with the other provisions of 
House Joint Resolution 424, represent the product of many years of 
study by judicial law, and administrative groups and by other persons 
associated with the administration of criminal justice and of the prob- 
lem of sentence disparities. The proposals embodied in the legislation, 
including the Senate amendment, have the support of the Judicial Con- 
ference of the United States, the American Bar Association, the P\^d- 
eral Advisory Corrections Council, the American Correctional Associa- 
tion, and the National Probational and Parole Association. The Depart- 
ment of Justice also recommends the proposed legislation, as amended 
by the Senate, except for the one provision in regard to the Federal 
Youth Corrections Act. 

It should be emphasized that the provisions of the proposed legisla- 
tion, including the Senate amendments, do not embody a softening of 
criminal penalties. Testimony submitted at the hearing on this legisla- 
tion disclosed that terms served under indeterminate sentences average 
longer than do terms under the fixed system. 

Emanuel Celler, 
E. E. Willis, 
William M. Tuck, 
Kenneth B. Keating, 
William C. Cramer, 

Managers on the Part of the House. 




157 C.J.S. ••I'iudous" Si'c. 1^(1, p. (;(Mi: 

In re (Souyh. 112 Cal. App. lilS : 

In re Korncr, ,"»() Cal. App. 2(1 4()~ : 

In re Stewart, 24 Cal. 2<1 .•i44 : 

Attorney Uoneral Opinion N S — oSlH, M.iy .11, lOl.'i : 

In re Liggett, 1S7 Cal. 42S : 

People V. Harmon. ~A Adv. California Kopoits : 



Revocation of Parole for Violation of Condition; Hearing 

(1) AVheii a paroleo has been returned to the institution, the Board 
of Parole siiall hokl a hearing within 60 days of his return to deter- 
mine whether his parole should be revoked. The parolee shall have 
reasonable notice of the ehar«res filed. The institutional parole staff 
shall render reasonable aid to the parolee in preparation for the hear- 
ing: and he shall be permitted to advise with his own lej^al eounsel. 
At the hearinj: the parolee may admit, deny, or explain the violation 
eharo-ed, and he may present proof, ineludin<r affidavits and other 
evidence, in support of his contentions. A verbatim record of the hear- 
ing: shall be made and preserved. 

(2) The board may order revocation of parole if it is satisfied, upon 
substantial evidence, that: 

(a) The parolee has failed, without a satisfactory excuse, to comply 
with a substantial requirement imposed as a condition of his 
parole ; and 

(b) The violation of condition involves: 

(i) The commission of another crime; or 
(ii) Misconduct indicating? a substantial risk that the parolee 

will commit another crime; or 
(iii) Misconduct indicating: that the parolee is unwillinfi- to com- 
ply with proper conditions of parole. 

(3) Parole revocation shall be by majority vote of the board. 





Section 1. When the jnclge, after a hearing in open court, deter- 
mines that a sentence of imprisonment for more than one year should 
be imposed on an offender, the original sentence shall be to imprison- 
ment generally, which shall be for the maximum term prescribed by 
law. Within six months after an offender commences to serve the origi- 
nal sentence, or within an additional period not exceeding six months 
if authorized by the court, the division shall recommend to the court 
the term of imprisonment to be fixed by the definite sentence, stating 
the reasons therefor. The judge who imposed the original sentence, or 
any other qualified judge duly designated to act, may thereupon fix 
the definite sentence by modifying or affirming the original sentence. 
If the judge fixes a definite sentence different from that recommended 
by the division, he shall state his reasons, which shall be reduced to 
writing and become a part of the records of the division. If the divi- 
sion shall not make its recommendation within the time herein limited, 
the court shall fix the definite sentence which the offender shall serve. 
If the division files its recommendation within the time herein limited 
and the court does not fix a definite sentence within two months, the 
sentence recommended by the division shall become the definite sen- 
tence and the clerk shall thereupon enter judgment accordingly. In no 
event shall the definite sentence be longer than the maximum term 
prescribed by law. 




By Area of State and Rate per 100,000 Population 

1958 1959 change 


Rate per Rate per 1958 

Area Number 100,000 Numier 100,000 rate 

Total 36,830 249.7 35,9&4 2.35.3 —5.8 

Los Angeles County 17,197 269.9 17,306 291.6 —1.8 

9 other Southern California counties__ 7,164 240.1 6,513 204.2 — 14.9 

San Francisco Bay area 6,348 ISl.S 6,351 176.0 —3.1 

Alameda County 1,682 189.7 1,543 171.6 —9.5 

San Francisco County 2.045 258.5 2,189 276.8 —7.1 

7 other counties 2,621 144.4 2,619 136.6 —5.4 

Balance of State 6,121 246.5 5,784 227.1 —7.9 

10 Sacramento Valley counties 1,808 227.7 1,654 198.7 —12.8 

7 San Joaquin Vallev counties 2,723 256.3 2,675 248.0 —3.2 

22 other counties 1,590 253.7 1,455 228.7 —9.9 



C c 

C >>] C re 

£ — 
'k. ~ 

'"" ui '" "^ 

w "f CC CO 

C -r rt X 
1- -r -^ T-i 

O ^ X JC o 
t C^l I- I-- 

tr. 'H r^ 



•= rt 







<=;' — 



o ^ 




M> ^ 





<M zs 


c — 





— c 














00 :. 

00 )l r^ r^ r- 

ri t- 00 © I 

•= _E 

— ' ~in 

9 a >-\ 


*- rs ^ <M- 

= y3 

K i. 

E ^-i: 

o oSq 

S zz 2 

Q O -:= 

\n tt 'z 
5 O c 
" < o 

ui > i 

O o 


o «'» 

0) ^ I— "-c 

■=5 = 1- 

■t 5: -f C5 

■0 l~ "^ CO 

C « es 











O M tH CO r-l C^l 


C L^ CO Tf I CO 00 T-I 'I* CO^ 

I _^ 

^ -=i? 1-5 

2 %^7^.'?. y. 

H it -TT t:' 


r-l .1 2 "5 


•a "^ 

5 ""^ 

S 1-=^ 1 i- 

« 2 

•S-«l =i 

~ -; 

M s .-a 3 


s cha 
the " 
•est g 
re ac 

C E I- .K 

ft- = M 

t- o c 

a " ^ -2; 'yj 


CO :- Of 

»- S _ !^ £= 

o c s u 
c/ 5 c M 

^2 a 

C»*^ 1 


= li 

^£ — 

"i is 



c - £ 

— •= o. 

■O " ., =- 0, 


„, rt a; « •= 

-=^ 1 




.■^ «-» 

!« C-H 






tot a 
n.s 1 





O o 


H ^ 

O Eh 

^ a 




"Los Angeles— ITPI — How can five solid citizens point to you and 
say, 'That's the man, officer'! What happened to cause my arrest? And 
why was I kept in jail for nearly a month for a crime I didn't commit 
when I had nine witnesses who said I was miles away from the cloth- 
ing store when it was held up ? ' ' 

The questions were asked by John Doe, 22, a tall, dark and hand- 
some former Marine who says he is not bitter even thou<>h the im- 
prisonment cost him a fine job opportunity, a month of his life, attor- 
nej^s' fees, confidence in the law and, possibly, future security because 
of circulation of his picture among many police departments. 

Doe was released Wednesday after two men who were arrested in 
Montana admitted the clothing store holdup. 

Doe was arrested August 28tli at his apartment 60 miles from here 
ill San Bernardino as a suspect in a $1,242 robbery August 22d of a 
chain clothing store in nearby Pico Rivera. His roommate also was 
arrested — on the same tip from an unidentified person — but w^as re- 
leased several days later when the victims failed to identify him. 

But they were firm in their identification of Doe — all five witnesses 
to the holdup. 

"Witnesses Are Mum" 

, manager of the store and one witness, said witnesses have 

been instructed not to discuss the case. 

"I've been instructed by my employer and others not to comment 
on it," said. "It's kinda touchy." 

Doe, originally from Stockton, said he lost his respect for detectives 
handling the case four days after he was arrested when one of them 
told him, "I'll see you behind bars." 

"If one of those detectives felt he was doing his job honestty, then 
I don't understand him," Doe said. "If he thinks that what he did 
is all that's required of him, then I'm disappointed in him. They all 
thought I was guilty." 

"Honorable Discharge" 

Doe said since his 1956 honorable discharge from the Marine Corps 
he has been attending college and working in groceries. He said he 
recently passed an insurance selling job aptitude test with top grades 
but that he does not know if he can qualify now because of the arrest. 

"I've been told that these people feel I may have a record," he said. 
' ' There 's some question about mug shots of me being all over the State 
and the next time there's a robbery, victims will start looking at my 
pictures again, and you can see what might happen." 

Doe's lawyers, George Dell of Los Angeles and Phillip Kassel of San 
Bernardino, said they do not know if all trace of the episode can be 
removed from the records. They also were mum as to whether Doe will 
try to take action against the government for his jailing.^ 

1 UPI Release appearing in the Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, California, September 
25, 1959. 



ir, iVc k; (iVA) a & i kliz. 2 en. 7,r, 
Section 40 

(1) Where any pei-sou not less than 14 years old who has been taken 
into custody is charged with an ott'ense before a majristrates' court, the 
court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of a police officer not below 
the rank of inspector, order tlio fingerprints of that person to be taken 
by a constable. 

(2) Pin<:er]-)i-ints taken in pui-suance of an order under this section 
shall be taken either at the place where the court is sittinjj or, if the 
person to whom the order relates is remanded in custody, at any place 
to which he is committed ; and a constable may use such reasonable 
force as may be necessary for that purpose. 

(3) The provisions of this section sliall be in addition to those of any 
other enactment under which fingerprints may be taken. 

(4) Where the finjjerprints of any person have been taken in pur- 
suance of an order under this section, then, if he is acquitted, or the 
examiniufi' justices determine not to commit him for trial, or if the in- 
formation ajiainst him is dismissed, the finjierprints and all copies and 
records of them shall be destroyed. 

Extract from Home Office circular to Clerks of Justices concerning Sec- 
tion 40 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 

"The purpose of this provision is to assist the police in their investi- 
•ration of crime. The police may have in their possession finjierprints 
taken in the course of inquiries into the offense with which the accused 
is charged, or in the course of inquiries into other oifenses, e.g. finger- 
prints left at the scene of a crime, and the taking of the fingerprints of 
the accused will enable the police to determine Avhether these finger- 
prints are the fingerprints of the accused. The taking of fingerprints is 
not oidy a means by which the identity of tiie perpetrator of an offense 
may be established : it is also a means by which an innocent person 
suspected of committing an offense may be cleared of suspicion. It will 
be for the court to decide in its discretion whetlier to make an order 
upon application by the police in such a case, but it will not always be 
possible for the police to give reasons for this application, since this 
might j)r('judice the hearing of the charge before the court, e.g. where 
the jierson charged is believed to have i)revious convictions and the 
police wish to have fingerprints for comparison with the records in 
Scotland Yard, or where he is suspected of having committed other 
offenses, and the police wish to ascertain whether his fingerprints are 
idenlical with those found at the scenes of these offenses." 





Augustine, Jr.. I*aul, Attorney at Law, Los Anjicles 

Boags, Robert L., Legislative Committee, NAACP, Los Angeles 

Cuff, Ellery H. Public Defender, Los Angeles 

Erwin, Richard E., Criminal Courts Bar Association, Los Angeles 

Farley, Gosooe, Legislative Representatixe, State Bar of California, San Francisco 

Garber, Elvis T., I'resident, Criminal Courts Bar Association, Los Angeles 

Joblin, Josei)h, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles 

Matthews, Al, Ex-Public Defender, lios Angeles 

Miller. Allen, Judge of Superior Court, Los Angeles 

Root, Gladys Towles, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles 



"Sec. 27700. Establishment of Office: Joinder of Counties. The 
board of supervisors of any county may establish the office of public 
defender for the county. Any county may join with one or more 
counties to establish and maintain the office of public defender to serve 
such counties. 

"Sec. 27701. Qualifications. A person is not eligible to the office of 
public defender unless he has been a practicing attorney in all of the 
courts of the State for at least the year preceding the date of his elec- 
tion or appointment. 

"Sec. 27702. Determination of Appointment or Election. At the 
time of establishing the office the board of supervisors shall determine 
Avhether the public defender is to be appointed or elected. 

"Sec. 27703. Appointment to Serve at Will: Appointment of Pub- 
lic Defender of Tavo or More Counties. If the public defender of any 
county is to be appointed, he shall be appointed by the board of super- 
visors to serve at its will. The public defender of any two or more 
counties shall be appointed by the boards of supervisors of such 

"Sec. 27704. Election: Appointment of Interim Administrator: 
Time of Election : Term of Office. If the public defender is to be elec- 
ted : (a) The board of supervisors shall appoint a public defender who 
shall hold office until the first Monday in January following the next 
general election of county officers. 

"Sec. 27705. Devotion of Full Time to Duties of Office. In 
counties of the first, second and third classes, the public defender 
shall devote all his time to the duties of his office and shall not engage 
in the practice of law except in the capacity of public defender. 

"A. Sec. 28022. Counties of First Class. Counties containing a 
population of 900,000 and over are counties of the first class. 

"B. Sec. 28023. Counties of Second Class. Counties containing 
a population of 750,000 and under 900,000 are counties of the second 

"C. Sec. 28024. Counties of Third Class. Counties containing a 
population of 600,000 and under 750,000 are counties of the third 


"Sec. 27705.1. Defense of Persons Accused of Crime. A public 
defender shall not durinji- his incumbency defend or assist in the de- 
fense of, or act as counsel for, any jx'rson accused of any crime in any 
county, except as set forth in this cliaiUcr. 

"Sec. 27706. Duties of Public Defender. Tlic public defender 
shall perform the followin*; duties: (a) Upon request of the defendant 
or upon order of the court, he shall defend, Avithout expense to the 
(U'fendant. any jierson who is not financially able to employ counsel 
and who is ciujrjicd with the connnission of any contempt or offense 
triable in the sui)erior court at all stages of the proceedings, includinjj: 
the preliminary examination. The public defender shall, upon reipiest, 
g:ive counsel and advice to such person about any charpe apainst him 
upon which the public defender is conductin<r the defense, and shall 
prosecute all appeals to a hijrher court or courts of any pei-son who 
has been convicted in the i-eversal or modification of llic jud^iincnt of 
conviction, (b) Upon i-e{|uest, he shall prosecute actions for the col- 
li'ction of wajies and other demands of any person who is not financially 
able to employ counsel, where the sum involved does not exceed one 
hundred dollars ($100;, and where, in the judjiment of the public 
defender, the claim urged is valid and enforcible in the courts, (c) 
T^pon request, he shall dcfeiul any person who is not financially able 
to employ counsel in any ei\il litigation in which, in llie judgment of 
the public defender, the person is being persecuted or unjustly har- 
assed, (d) Upon order of the court, he shall represent any person 
who is not financially able to employ counsel in proceedings under 
Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division (> and under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of 
Division 6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code." 


Allen, Francis A. "Criminal Justice, LejiJil Values and the Rehabilitative Ideal," 
Joiininl of CriniiiKiI Lair. Criminologij and Police Science, Sept.-Oct. 1059, Vol. 
50, No. 3. 

Ash, Philip. "The Reliability of Psvchiatrio Diagnoses," Joiinial Ahiioniidl Social 
Psycholoyy, Vol. 44, 1941). 

American Law Institute . . . Model Penal Code, Vo. '>, lt),j6. Sec. 80r».21. 

Barnes, Harry E. and Nes'ley K. Teeters. Neir Horizons in Criminology (Engle- 

wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1!).")!)). 
Renanti v. U.S., SHS U.S. !)6. 
Brancale, Ralph. "Diagnostic Technicpie in Aid of Sentencing," Lair and Coniem- 

porarij Prohlenis (Durham: Duke University School of Law, Summer 19."»,S) V. 23, 

No. 3. 
Breithaupt v. Abram, ".S 88"), 271 P. 2d 827. 
Brinegar v. U.S. P.38 U.S. 160. 181. 
Bureau of Pu])lic Administration. California Puhlic Surrey, I^niversity of California. 

Berkeley, Oct. lO.jO. 
California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 13. 
California. Department of Corrections. Adult Authority. "Minimum and Maximum 

Terms on the Most Frequent Offenses and Initial Adult Authority Appearance." 

Sacramento, Sept. 1{)~)\) (Tables — 3 pages). 

California. Department of (\irrections. The Manual of Procedures for Classification 
in ihe Department of Corrections of the State of California. Sacramento, lOHy. 

California. Judicial Council of the State of California, "19.17 Statutory Changes in 
the California Law of Arrests." 

Cowen, Zelraan. "The Admissibility of Evidence Procured Through Illegal Searches 
in British Commonwealth Jurisdictions," 5 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 523 (1952). 

Davis et al v. Kendrick, 52 A.C. 530 (July, 1959). 

Denning, Alfred. Freedom Under the Law (London: Stevens «& Sons Limited, 1949). 

deRopp, Robert S. Drugs and the Mind (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1960). 

Devlin, Patrick. The Criminal Prosecution in England (New Haven : Yale Univer- 
sity Press, 1958). 

Douglas, W. O. "The Means and the End" 1959 Wash. U.L.Q. 

Draper, Murray. (CCA. 1st App. Dist. ), "The Cahan Case and Probal)le," 
California Bar Journal, May-.Iune, 1959. 

Dunham, H. Warren. "The Juvenile Court : Contradictory Orientations in Process- 
ing Offenders," Laio and Contemporary Problems (Durham: Duke Universitv 
School of Law, Summer, 1958) V. 23, No. 3. 

Edehnan t\ California, 344 U.S. 357. 

Elkins V. U.S., 80 S.Ct. 1437. 

Ex parte Hudgins, 86 W. Va. 526 

Ex parte Smith, 135 Mo. 223. 

Fox, Lionel W. The English Prison and Borstal Systems, 1952: Cited in The Inde- 
terminate Sentence, United Nations Publication, 1954. 

Hawaii r. Anduha, 48 F. 2d 171. 

Hayner, Norman S. "Sentencing by an Administrative Board," Law and Contem- 
porary Problems, V. 23, No. 3, 1958. 

Huxley, Aldou.s. Brave Neiv World Revisited (New York : Harper & Brothers, 1958). 

Irvine v. People of State of California, 347 U.S. 128, 132. 

Kamisar, Yale. "Wolf and Lustig Ten Years Later : Illegal State Evidence in State 
and Federal Courts," -'fS Minn. L. Rev. (1959). 

Legislative Counsel Opinions No. 1012 and No. 1195. 

Los Angeles. Police Department (Letter from W. H. Parker, Chief of Police, by 
Thomas Reddin, Deputy Chief Commander, Bureau of Corrections, June 23, 1960 
to Assembly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure). 

Maguire, John M. Lance of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1928). 



Martin, Bonnie Leo. Probahle Cause to Arrest and Admissibility of Evidence, Print- 
ing Division, Docnments Section (Sacramento: 1960 Rov. Ed.)- 

Martin. John liartlow. Break Doirn the Walls (Now York: P.allaiitiiic T?ooi<s. 

Messinjrer, Emanuel and Hcnjaniin Apfelherg. New York Coitiifi/, Court of General 
/nV.v.v/oh. PKjfchiiitric Clinic, a Quarter Ceniunj of Court I'si/chiatri/ (New York, 
l!t.">S) (mini): Cited in California Pulilir Surrei/. ^'ol. 12, No. 10, liurean of Pub- 
lic Administration, I'niversity of California, lierkeley, Oct. IJ).")*). 

In re Xewhern, 168 C.A. 2d 472. 

Ohnstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 48."). 

On Lee v. U.S., 343 U.S. 747, 7r)8. 

Penal Code Sec. 7.21 ; Sec. S')!.;!; Part 4, Title 3, Sections l,3000-.30. 

People r. Belcastro, 3.j6 111. 144. 

People V. Cahan, 44 Cal. 2d 434, 282 P. 2d iMt."). 

People V. Craig, 152 Cal. 42, 47. 

People r. Before, 242 N.Y. 13, 21, ISO N.E. 585, 587. 

People V. Grace, 156 C.A. 2d 68 : 332 P. 2d 811. 

People V. Ingle, 53 A.C. 408. 

People V. Mati.son, 51 Cal. 2d 777, 788-790. 

People r. Stephen A. Kash. 52 Cal. 2d 36, 43. 

People r. WiL-ion, 145 Cal. App. 2d 1. 

I'lihlic Hearing; of Assembly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure, .Tolin A. 
O'Connell, Chairman, at Sacramento, California, February 18-19, 1960. 

I'ublic Ilearini; of Assembly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure. .John A. 
O'Connell, Chairman, at I.^)s Angeles, California, Xovend)er 13, 19.59. 

Public Hearing of Assend)ly Interim Committee on .Tudiciary. (Subcommittee on 
Constitutional Rights) .Tohn A. O'Connell. Cli:iirman. at San Francisco, Cali- 
fornia, .Inly 28 and 29, 19.58. 

Public Hearing of Assembly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure, .Tohn A. 
O'Connell, Chairman, at Los Angeles, California, Xovember 12. 19.59. 

Recorder, .Jan. 24, 1935. 

Rhode Island. Legislative Reference Bureau in 1934. I'ublic Defender. .Analysis of 
Latrs of the Several States. 

Kios V. U.S., 80 S. Ct. 1431. 

Robin.son, .Jerome. "The Maryland Approach to Defective Deliu(|U(Mit Criminals,' 
State Government, Summer Issue, I95i). 

Rubin, Sol. Focus (New Yoik : National Proi)ation and I'arole Association, 194S) 
V. 27-29, 1948-50. 

St. Louis V. Roche, 128 Mo. 541 

San Franci.sco, City and County. Public Defender. Annual Report, .July 1, 1958 — 
.June :M), 1959. 

United States Constitution, Amendment VI 

U.S. Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. Report to the Judicial Conference of the 
Committee on Puni.'<hinent for Crime (Washingtou. .June, 1942). 

U.S. Code Congressional & Adm. News. "Conference Iteport : Statement of the .Man- 
agers on the Part of the," Vol. 2. 

U.S. Congress. Public Law 752. 85th Congress. "Federal Sentencing — Institutes and 
Joint C<)uncils." 

U.S. S. Rep. No. 821, T7tli Congres.s, 1st Se.ssicm. 

Wallinga, Jack V. "The I'robation Officer's Role in Psychiatric," Journal of 
Criminal Lair, Criminology and Police Science, ?^ov.-Dee. I'J'tit, Vol. 50, No. 4. 

Meeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 38;{, :'.45. 

8 Wigniore, Evidence, (3rd Edition, i;M(M Sec. 2184 

Wolf V. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 


L-2142 12-tiO IM priiilfj in cALiFORNrA state printing office 





Subcommittee on Correctional Facilities 

of the 

Committee on Criminal Procedure 


JOHN A. O'CONNELL, Chairman 




MAXINE MOORE, Cowmiitee Secretary 
MILTON L. McGHEE, Legislative Intern 

December, 1960 

Published by the 



Speaker Speaker pro Tempore 


Majority Floor Leader Minority Floor Leader 

Chief Clerk 


Assembly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure 

Sacramento, January 2, 1961 

Honorable Ralph M. Brown 

Speaker of the Assembly and 
Members of the Assembly 

Assembly Chamber, Sacramento, California 

Gentlemen : Enclosed is the Report on Correctional Facilities of the 
Subcommittee on Correctional Facilities of the Assembly Interim Com- 
mittee on Criminal Procedure. 

This report is treated in a comprehensive and balanced manner, and 
deserves the attention of the Legislature. 

Respectfully submitted, 

John 'Connell, Chairman 



Assembly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure 

Sacramento, January 2, 1961 

Honorable John A. O'Connell, Chairman 
Assemhly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure 
California Legislature 
State Capitol, Sacramento 

Dear Mr. O'Connell: In ax!cordance with the provisions of House 
Resolution No. 378, we are herewith submitting the report of the Sub- 
committee on Correctional Facilities. 

"We urge that the Legislature give its careful attention to the recom- 
mendations included in this report. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Vernon Kilpatrick 
Subcommittee Chairman 
Robert W. Crown 
Louis Francis 




I. Introduction 7 

II. Past Assembly and Special Studies of Local Correctional 

Institutions 9 

III. Role of the Board of Corrections and Department of Cor- 
rections with Respect to Local Jails 12 

IV. Appraisal of County and City Jails of California by Sub- 
committee 17 

A. San Francisco City and County Jails 17 

1. City Prison 17 

2. County Jail No. 1 21 

3. County Jail No. 2 — San Bruno 21 

B. Sacramento City and County Jails 22 

1. City Jail 22 

2. County Central Jail 23 

3. County Jail at Franklin 25 

C. San Joaquin Jail Center 25 

D. Los Angeles City and County Jails 29 

1. City Jails 29 

2. County Jails 31 

E. Alameda County and Oakland City Jails 31 

1. Alameda "Court House" Jail 31 

2. Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center 33 

3. Oakland City Jail 35 

V. Federal Listing and Special Study Commission's Rating of 

California Jails 38 

A. Federal Listing 38 

(1) Chart 39 

B. Special Study Commission's Rating and Administrative 
Recommendations 38 

VI. Notable Institutions, Programs and Procedures 41 

A. San Diego Conditional Release and Parole Program 41 

B. Los Angeles County Wayside Honor Rancho and Mira 
Loma 42 

C. Alameda County Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center 44 

D. Tulare County Sleep Therapy 47 

E. Inter and Intra County Boarding of Inmates 47 

F. San Mateo County : Governmental-Private Rehabilitation 
Program 48 




G. Treatmeut Programs in San Diego, New Haven County 

Jail, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania Prison Society 51 

H. Group Counseling in San Mateo County Jail 54 

I. Los Angeles Police Department Rehabilitation Center in 
" Bouquet Canyon 56 

VII. The Problem of the Alcoholic and the Local Jails 57 

A. General 57 

(1) Suggested Approaches for the Treatment and Care 

of Alcoholics 59 

B. The Los Angeles City Programs 62 

C. Santa Rita Alcoholic Clinic 71 

D. Role of Private Agencies and Organizations in the Treat- 
ment and Care of Alcoholics and their Assistance to 
Local Jails 72 

1. Alcoholics Rehabilitation Association of San Fran- 
cisco — First Step Home 72 

2. Alcoholics Anonymous 73 

3. Northern California Service League 75 

4. The Protestant Episcopal Hostel of San Francisco — 
the Henry Ohlhoff House 76 

5. The Salvation Army Men's Social Service Center, San 

Francisco 78 

(a) Federal Grant to Center to Study Alcoholism 80 

6. The Salvation Army Men's Social Service Center — 
Lytton 80 

7. Adult Guidance Center of the San Francisco Depart- 
ment of Public Health, a Governmental Out-Patient 
Clinic 83 

E. Recommendations — Need for Immediate Action 84 

VIII. The Problem of the Narcotic and the Local Jails 90 

A. General 90 

B. Some of the Notable Treat mont and Detention Programs 

in Operation in Local Jails 90 

C. National Study: National Association for the Preven- 
tion of Addiction (NAP AN) 93 

IX. Probation and Parole 94 

A. Probation 94 

(1) Legislative Recommendations 95 

B. Parole 98 

X. Summary and Recommendations 100 

A. General Recommendations 100 

B. Legislative Recommendations 108 



"California reported more crime during tlie first six montlis of 1960 than 
in any previous six montlis period . . . since 1954. The overall rise in 
crime reported is proportionately greater than the increase of the total 
population in this same period." — Grime in California, Midyear Summary 
Report 1960. 

"A narcotic problem of major proportions confronts the State of Cali- 
fornia." — Narcotic Arrests in California, July 1, 1959-June 30, 1960. 

When observations such as the above are made, supported by statis- 
tical data, the need for constant study and evaluation of our correctional 
institutions and programs cannot go unnoticed. To briefly illustrate the 
magnitude of the problem, in 1959 the Department of Justice in its 
report, Crime in California 1959, reported 589,531 misdemeanor and 
80,661 felony arrests in the State for the year. For 1960, a similar 
picture is emerging. In the Midyear 1960 Report, covering the period 
from January to June, 323,414 misdemeanor and 38,789 felony arrests 
were reported. In addition, in the first report by the newly created 
narcotic unit of the Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Department of 
Justice, Narcotic Arrests in California, July 1, 1959-June 30, 1960, over 
17,000 arrests were reported. 

From these statistics, no matter what the final dispositions are, one 
can see that today over 600,000 persons spend some time in the jails 
of the State each year. Such a sizeable operation is costly, not only in 
terms of losses in human resources but also in terms of losses through 
high costs in law enforcement, court administration and detention. 

Such losses and costs compel us to constantly rethink and re-evaluate 
our local detentional programs (indeed state programs as well), the 
traditional and present role of our local jails against a backdrop of 
a constantly mounting rate of crime, its causes and origin, and a host 
of new concepts of penology, rehabilitation and correction. The chal- 
lenge is not new ; rather it is the need for speedy and effective solutions. 

It is therefore fitting to briefly set forth the basic principle which 
underlies our recommendations and which was uppermost in the minds 
of the members of the subcommittee in pursuing this study. The trend 
in modern penological thinking — and this shift has been particularly 
evident during the past 10 years — has been to de-emphasize the objec- 
tives of punishment and retribution in detention facilities, and to place 
increasing emphasis on the concept of protecting society through the 
treatment and rehabilitation of the offender. Through this approach, 
it is believed, not only is the possibility of readjustment in society 
enhanced, but the rather high and alarming rate of recividism is re- 
duced also. 

Hence it is not enough to administer our local detention facilities 
as if their only functions were that of temporary and short-term holding 
— purely custodial functions. A rather encouraging trend extant in the 
local jails is the abandonment of the belief that treatment and rehabili- 
tation of inmates are functions solely within the realm of the responsi- 
bilities of state penal institutions, and an increasing acceptance of the 



view that rehabilitative programs are possible and practicable — indeed 
necessary, on the city and county level. Today 24 counties and three 
cities have jail farm camps. "Within these localities, there are 40 sep- 
arate institutions. Thus with such facilities, treatment programs can 
be put into operation. We submit that the impact of this trend cannot 
be readily assessed at this juncture, but the potentialities of this change 
in terms of improving the effectiveness of our local correctional systems, 
rehabilitating and restoring errant members of society to useful and 
productive lives, and reducing the costs of government in law enforce- 
ment, detention and court administration are unlimited, for the local 
jails remain as the Board of Corrections stated in its publication, 
Minimum Jail Standards," . . . our mast important penal institutions" 

In pursuing our study, this subcommittee visited and inspected the 
detention facilities of the Cities and Counties of Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, Sacramento, San Joaquin County and the lockup in the 
City of Stockton, the Alameda County facilities and the Oakland City 
Jail. Through personal observation, conversations with sheriffs, chiefs 
of police, jailers, matrons and other members of the jail staffs, con- 
cerning jail functions such as booking procedures, health and sanita- 
tion procedures, rehabilitative programs and disciplinary practices, we 
gained helpful and illuminating information. We were also greatly 
aided by the published studies and reports that have been made by 
other legislative committees and special study commissions. The sub- 
committee was also greatly assisted by the helpful co-operation it re- 
ceived from many private civic groups which are conducting very 
effective treatment programs in many local communities in connection 
with the local jails, and governmental agencies we had occasion to 

In our study, we examined a plethora of proposals and recommenda- 
tions. We were particularly interested in, and have discussed in our 
report, many of the proposals having to do with such problems as 
(1) reducing the jail population — overcrowding; (2) improvement of 
the programs for those where incarceration is necessary and its effect 
on court costs and the overall costs of crime; (3) improvement of the 
jail physical facilities and personnel ; (4) extended use of probation 
and parole; and (5) treatment of alcoholics and narcotic addicts. 

The subcommittee's findings and recommendations are set forth in 
detail in the report. We commend them to your careful consideration. 


Fifteen years ago, the Assembly at the 1945 Session of the Legisla- 
ture, created its first committee to undertake a study of the local 
jails in the history of the State. At that time, California jails were 
recognized as being among the worst in the nation. 

This committee, known as the Assembly Committee on City and 
County Jails (and colloquially referred to by the press as the "Kil- 
patrick Committee"), was composed of five members with Assembly- 
man Vernon Kilpatrick as chairman. It is reported to have been the 
first legislative committee set up to study local corrections in the 

During the first two years of its work, the committee visited and 
inspected several jails in the state and at least one jail, the old 
central jail in Los Angeles, was closed, due to committee disclosures 
and recommendations, as being unfit for human use. 

The committee's first report was well received and many of its 
recommendations were written into law. Copies of the report were in 
great demand by federal and state officials through the United States 
and many foreign countries. 

At the 1947 session, the committee was recreated and held exten- 
sive hearings throughout the State. In many instances, the work of 
the committee generated public interest which resulted in effective 
remedial action and tangible accomplishments, such as passage of bond 
issues to finance construction of new detentional facilities, and larger 
appropriations from boards of supervisors and city councils, for jail 

During the 1947 session the members of the committee introduced 
or co-authored 37 bills designed to correct evils unearthed, and to 
implement committee recommendations. And since 1947, over 110 bills 
have been authored or co-authored by members of Assembly local 
correctional committees. A list of these measures is included in the 
committee's partial report in 1953. See, Journal of the Assembly, 
Vol. 1, (Kegular Session 1953, pp. 709-13). Among the more important 
and widely known measures adopted as a result of the committee's 
work are : 

(1) Minimum jail standards ; 

(2) Outlawing kangaroo courts ; 

(3) Outlawing the fee system of feeding prisoners ; 

(4) Authorization of Department of Corrections to set quality 
and quantity standards of food, clothing and bedding; 

(5) Approval by Department of Corrections of all new jail plans 
or alterations over $1,500. 

Just recently in a statement to the subcommittee the Board of 
Corrections advised that "over 300" plans have been studied and 



reviewed by tlie department. This service has resulted in better plan- 
ning of detention facilities in many localities where the department's 
recommendations have been followed. 

At the 1949 session, the Asembly again recreated the committee 
under a different designation, the Assembly Interim Committee on 
Crime and Correction, and expanded its powers and scope of study 
to include state prisons and notable institutions and their programs in 
other states and of the federal government. 

Pursuant to this direction, members of the committee attended the 
conference of the American Prison Association in ^Milwaukee, Wis- 
consin, and visited federal and state penal institutions throughout the 
country. These visits greatly increased the knowledge, insight and 
wealth of information of the committee members in dealing with the 
problems extant within the State. All of the exemplary institutions 
visited were discussed and illustrated in the committee's report. Partial 
Report of Interim Committee on Crime and Corrections, April 3, 1950. 

The committee also studied the adult penal institutions of the State, 
the "prosecution methods in the widely-publicized 'Marjorie Massow 
Case' (the Madge Meredith affair)," and the problem of the juvenile 
offender and the correctional system for handling juvenile delinquents 
in the State. See, Report of Subcommittee on Marjorie Massow (]\Iadge 
Meredith), March 1951. (Partial Report of Assembly Interim Com- 
mittee on Crime and Corrections.) 

After the committee submitted its report, the Governor commuted 
the defendant's sentence to time served. It has been said this was 
the first legislative review of a judicial proceeding in the history of 
the State. This study sharply pointed up the need for some type of 
assistance to be given to defendants in felony cases in order that they 
may be able to utilize very extensive investigative services which most 
cannot afford, even though they retain an attorney. 

At the 1951 Session, the Assembly Interim Committee on Crime and 
Corrections was continued but was made a subcommittee of the Social 
"Welfare Committee. Following the period after the 1951 session, the 
committee held public hearings on the operations of nonscheduled air- 
lines, and the narcotic problem. As a result of quick actiou by the 
chairman, Assemblyman Kil])atrick, many veterans returning from 
Korea and other areas were refunded tlieir money s])ent for iionexistent 
air transportation. (See, Partial Report of the Subcommittee on Crime 
and Corrections of the Assemblj' Interim Committee on Social Welfare, 
Journal of the Assembly, Vol. 1, Regular Session, 1958, pji. 70o-39.) 

The narcotic phase of the committee's 1951 study also evoked consid- 
erable interest from other states, schools, civic groups and the press. 
(Final report of the Subcommittee on Crime and Correction of the 
Assembly Interim Committee on Social Welfare relative to Control of 
Juvenile Dtlineiucncjf in Los Angeles Count\i, jNIarch 12, 1953.) 

Perhaps no statement so aptly sums up tlie rea^son for, and answers 
the "why" of, a legislative study of local detention facilities as the 
answer given by a predecessor committee in 1953. It observed: "We 
have been asked, 'Why a committee to investigate crime or why is a 
legi.slative committee interested in its correction?' Our answer is, crime 
is big business in California and its correction costs an astounding 


amount of money for the maintenance of the apparatus, which begins 
with the policeman on the street and ends with prisons." 

Not only has the Legislature conducted specialized studies, but special 
commissions have studied local correctional systems as well. In 1949 
the Commission for the Study of Adult Corrections and Release Pro- 
cedures studied the problem, A Study of the County Jails of Cali- 
fornia, June 30, 1949. During this same period, we may add, a predeces- 
sor Assembly Committee was pursuing a similar study, Report of the 
Assembly Interim Committee on Detention Homes and County and City 
Jails, January 13, 1949, and the two studies came up with many similar 
conclusions and recommendations. In 1956 the Citizens' Advisory Com- 
mittee to the Attorney General on Crime and Crime Prevention made 
a study California Jails, September 12, 1956, which was shortly fol- 
lowed by a monumental study by the Special Study Commission on 
Correctional Facilities and Services, The County Jails of California: 
An Evaluation, in March, 1957. 

All of these studies have helped to improve local correctional systems. 
They have also stimulated public interest, and in many instances, have 
generated the necessary impetus to change indifference to intolerable 
conditions in many local jails to dedicated efforts to "do something 
about the situation." In addition, a wealth of knowledge has been 
gained which is invaluable in approaching the problems of our local 
jail systems. Such accomplishments as these too well illustrate the worth 
and value of legislative and special studies of local corrections. As a 
predecessor committee observed in 1953 in commenting upon the work 
of prior Assembly local corrections study committee, "... the results 
of its work are indelibly written into the Penal Code of the State. " It is 
our hope that the Legislature and particularly the Assembly will con- 
tinue its interest in the progress and status of local correctional systems 
and will periodically visit these institutions to observe and lea.rn of 
their progress, conditions, and problems first hand. With such knowl- 
edge, sound and effective legislative decisions can be made. 




"The history of prison management in California reveals scandal after 
scandal and a sordid record of mismanagement. The conditions . . . found 
to exist iu our penal system are a challenge to every public-spirited citizen 
of this State. The solution lies in a complete reorganization of this function 
of state government." 

— Final Report of Governor's Investigaiion 
Committee on Penal Affairs, January 21, 19^4 

The multitnde of problems faced by the Departnieiit of Corrections 
when it was created in INIay, 1944, realistically determined the direction 
of its activities. 

Foremost was a desperate ra>ce against time to keep from being 
engulfed in a flood tide of prison commitments. Though it had been 
evident there would be a vast increase in the prison population, no effort 
had been made to prepare for it. 

Keeping pace with California's general population increases, the 
prison population exploded from a May 1, 1944, total of 5,711 to a 
current total of some 21,000 — a gain of almost 1,000 a year. 

Needed facilities were planned and constructed with imagination, 
economy and in relation to each other. This has been a continuing task. 

The Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, a medium custody 
institution, was opened in temporary quarters in 1946, to fill the gap 
between the existing maximum type institutions at Folsom and San 
Quentin and the minimum California Institution for Men at Chino. 
The permanent facility was opened in 1951. 

The Deuel Vocational Institution was also opened in temporary quar- 
ters in 1946 to serve the needs of the grooving group of young men too 
mature for juvenile correctional schools, but too immature in crime for 
confinement in a prison. Permanent facilities were opened in 1953. 

The California Medical Facility, opened in 1950, and the California 
Men's Colony, opened in 1954, represented milestones in the advance of 
correctional treatment as well as relieving the strain of excessive pop- 
ulation in other institutions. 

The unique medical facility, combining the legal features of a prison 
with the climate of a hospital, was a dynamic step forward in the grow- 
ing recognition that crime in many cases is but a symptom of serious 
mental and emotional disorders that can be successfully treated. The 
principal treatment at the medical facility, selected not oiily for econ- 
omy but for effectiveness, is group psychotherapy. 

The Men's Colony marked the first recognition by any state of the 
need for a specialized institution for the older, handicapped prisoners 
— the prisoners shunted aside in most institutions because of their in- 
ability to participate in a normal program. Treatment at the colony 
offers an opportunity for research into the problems of the aging. 



A new, larger California Institution for Women was completed near 
Corona in 1952 and opened somewhat prematurely when the existing 
institution at Tehachapi was extensively damaged by an earthquake. 
The Tehachapi facility was renovated and reopened in 1955 as a branch 
of the California Institution for Men. 

Population pressures continued to mount and so did economic pres- 
sures. As a result a new concept in prison design was introduced. Its 
objective: to combine the safety, efficient management and improved 
opportunity for corrective treatment of the small institution with the 
economies of the large one. 

The Correctional Training Facility, North, at Soledad, opened in 
1958, was the first planned, designed and constructed to take advantage 
of the central services of an existing institution. Built on state-owned 
land, the new facility utilizes existing services of the parent institution 
such as water supply, light, heat, power, sewage disposal, fire protec- 
tion, laundry, warehousing, food preparation, hospital, business serv- 
ices and others. It is conservatively estimated this saved approximately 
$4 million in construction costs and saves about $400,000 in operating 
costs each year. 

The inmate population does not normally come into contact with the 
1,500 inmates of the central institution nor the 500 or more in the 
barracks unit. Indeed, the new facility is divided into two separate 
600-man living units and each group separately uses joint classroom, 
shop and other common facilities. 

A second institution embodying this concept is nearing completion 
at Los Padres on the site of the Mens Colony. It is a 2,400 inmate 
medium custody facility. 

Construction was started in 1960 on another unique facility. This is 
the California Conservation Center in Susanville, to be the hub of the 
conservation camp program. Instead of cell blocks, there will be two 
facing 608-man units separated from each other by a core of central 
facilities such as the messhall, kitchen and laundry. 

Each of the two units is divided into 16-man dormitories, the same 
number of men as on a camp crew. This will promote pride in their 
unit and facilitate other correctional treatment such as group counsel- 

Expansion and conversion of the camp program came in 1947 when 
the emphasis was shifted from highway construction to forestry con- 
servation. The program was further accelerated by Governor Edmund 
G. Brown in 1959. 

At the present time there are 25 year-round camps of which three 
are highway camps and the others State forestry. Three of the forestry 
camps are mobile. In addition a few seasonal camps are operated with 
the U.S. Forest Service. Many more year-round permanent camps are 

The forestry camps not only provide accommodations currently for 
some 2,000 men, but almost equally important, they also provide con- 
structive employment for them full-time. 

Destructive idleness was another problem in 1944 despite the war- 
time manpower demands. It threatened to become even more serious in 
the postwar period. 


A special fund was set up in 1945 to finance industrial expansion. 
In 1947 the Correctional Industries Commission was created to provide 
work programs without interference with private industry or organized 

These herculean accomplishments were possible only because of the 
implementation of a number of reforms. These included: 

1. The spoils system of recruitment and promotion was eliminated 
by placing the personnel both of the institutions and the central 
office under the state civil service system. 

2. A realistic, thorough, continuous training program for institution 
employees was established. 

3. Institution staffs were reorganized and departmentalized in line 
with modern concepts. 

4. A statistical system was developed to account for the total num- 
ber in institutions, the number on parole and the characteristics 
of the prisoners. 

5. The notorious "con boss" system which involved the placing of 
prisoners in the position of authority and trust was completely 

6. A system of food administration based on sound scientific princi- 
ples was developed. 

7. A scientific classification system for the study, analysis and treat- 
ment of prisoners was developed. 

In addition, existing rehabilitative services were rejuvenated, pro- 
fessionalized, and supported. Academic and vocational educational pro- 
grams were established at all institutions taught by credentialed in- 
structors. Facilities for religious services were provided and inservice 
training begun for chaplains. 

On this foundation there have been erected significant new programs 
of treatment and research which may represent the start of a new era 
of correctional treatment of offenders. 

One such program is group counseling. 

From a small pilot program at the California State Prison at Fol- 
som, group counseling has spread to include a large majority of the 
inmates at all institutions of the department except, of course, the 
Medical Facility. 

This roali.stic program economically extended the benefits of group 
treatment by tapping the treatment potential of large numbers of the 
custodial, business and industrial staffs. With professional guidance, 
these lay leaders conduct group .sessions which lead to a greater under- 
standing by the inmates of their own problems. The sessions, inci- 
dentally, have also given the employees a better understanding of the 
prisoners. Group counseling has already proved its value in improve- 
ment of institution morale and reduction of disciplinary problems. 

Another such is the pioneering development of group living or thera- 
])eutic comninnity experiments. This concept is being tried at a camp 
and in small vniits at several institutions. 

The basic concept of the therapeutic community is the creation of a 
condition in which inmates staff in their own corrective treatment 
and the treatment of other inmates, primarily tlirough frank group 
communication concerning all types of problems. 


The essence is the focusing of the natural group relationships which 
always develop in an institution away from the traditional antisocial 
attitudes and toward recognition of the mutual interests among the 
inmates, the staff and the community. 

A third program is the Narcotic Treatment Control Project. 

The basic mission of the project is to prevent the readdiction of 
former narcotic addicts released on parole through more intensive 
supervision, frequent nalline testing to prove chemically whether they 
are using narcotics, and swift reconfinement of those threatened with 

The narcotic project is just one example of the practical, operational 
research in which the Research Division, formed in 1958, is engaged. 
The narcotic project, incidentally, is an outgrowth of the division's 
first report, a factual study of narcotics addiction issued in Febru- 
ary, 1959. 

Other major projects include the development of a "base expectancy" 
scale and a new method by which prisoners can be classified on the 
basis of their interpersonal maturity. 

Use of these techniques will permit a more accurate evaluation of 
the effect of specific correctional treatments on specific types of inmates. 

One of the specific duties of the State Board of Corrections is the 
provision of advisory services to cities and counties concerning jail and 
detention facilities. 

The Board of Corrections was established by the Legislature in 1944. 
It is composed of the members of the Adult Authority, the Youth Au- 
thority, the Board of Trustees of the California Institution for Women, 
two citizens appointed by the Governor, and the Director of Corrections, 
who is chairman. 

The advisory services include studies of the detention needs of a city 
or county, review of plans for detention facilities, and advice on the 
operation and management of detention facilities. 

Upon request by the jurisdiction involved, the board will also inspect 
a jail. 

One of the board's first actions, taken in 1945 at the request of the 
sheriffs' association, was a thorough survey of all of the State's county 

After reviewing the results of the survey, the board developed a 
written set of minimum jail standards. These were published in 1946. 

In accord with a 1947 law, the board established "Minimum Jail 
Standards for Feeding, Clothing and Bedding." This was published 
in interim form and widely distributed for the comment of interested 
local officials. 

Appropriate revisions were made in both publications and a revised 
edition combining the two was issued in 1952 as a service to city and 
county jail administrators in promoting more effective handling of 
jail inmates and by insuring increased efficiency in jail management. 

The law requires that the county supervisors provide the sheriff with 
the means to meet the standards. 

Plans and specifications for the construction or remodeling of any 
city or county jails or facilities for the detention of juveniles must 
be submitted to the board for its review and recommendations if the 
cost is to exceed $1,500. 


The board has to date reviewed more than 300 such projects. From 
this wealth of accumulated experience, it has been frequently able to 
pass along valuable ideas developed in one jurisdiction which could 
be incorporated in the plans of another. 

On the request of any California city or county, the board is re- 
quired to study entire jail programs and make recommendations. This 
service has been requested by a number of jurisdictions as a basis for 
budgetary requests, to justify bond issues, and to secure technical 
advice from a variety of specialists. 

Studies may include recommendations as to the size and type of 
facilities required to meet future needs. 

In an effort to be helpful, the board has issued several publications. 
One of these is the "Prisoner Transportation Manual." It describes 
methods of transporting persons under restraint. It is available to all 
peace officers at a nominal charge from the State Printing Division. 
It was also reprinted by the National Sheriffs' Association. 

As a further service to those responsible for jail management, the 
board published in 1959 a compilation of "California Laws Pertaining 
to County and City Adult Detention Facilities." A supplement was 
issued in 1960 bringing it up to date. 

Over the years several special commissions appointed by the Gov- 
ernor to assist the board in its crime studies have studied various facets 
of jail administration and made constructive suggestions. 

The board has supported legislation that would assist in the proper 
management of jails but has never asked for administrative authority 
over them. 


Through visits, inspections and consultations with the staffs of the 
detentioual institutions of Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, 
both county and city, San Joaquin County, City of Stockton, Alameda 
County and the City of Oakland, this subcommittee was privileged to 
observe some of the practices and procedures extant in our local jails 
first hand. We were also greath- assisted in this effort by the reports of 
the Special Study Commission on Correctional Facilities and Services, 
which made a very careful and valuable study, "The County Jails of 
California: An Evaluation/' in 1957. In addition we were greatly aided 
by the study and report of the Citizen's Advisory Committee to the 
Attorney General on Crime Prevention, entitled, "California Jails," 
in 1956. The latter study covered not only the county but the larger 
eity jails as well. 

While our on-the-scene study was much too limited, we were in a 
realistic sense able to look once more at some of the local institutions. 

Thus, our study is the first of its kind to be conducted by a legislative 
committee within the State in almost ten years. 


On our visit to San Francisco County, we inspected: (1) County 
Jail No. 1; (2) County Jail No. 2 (San Bruno branch) ; and (3) City 

(a) City Prison 

The San Francisco City Prison, located on the fifth floor of the Hall 
of Justice, was found to be entirely unsuitable as an adult detention 
facility for a metropolis as large and progressive as San Francisco. 
This facility epitomizes the dark, dingy and filthy stereotype of the 
American local lockup. It's physical upkeep has been allowed to fall 
below even minimal standards of decency and cleanliness. Such sordid 
conditions as dried vomitus and excrement were observed on the 
floor. In one cell, a belt was hanging from the ceiling — a potential 
suicide hazard; much of the plumbing in the cells was out of order, 
thus leaving the inmates without operational toilet facilities. In many 
instances mattresses were not provided, consequently inmates were 
compelled to sleep on the floor or on springs of the cell cots. The floors 
of the cells and hallways were littered with debris, and large containers 
filled with trash were sitting around the hall. 

The rated capacity of the prison is 170 beds. However, if capacity 
were to be determined in accordance with criteria established by the 
Board of Corrections,^ it would approximate accommodations for 80 
inmates. Yet the average number of inmates held far exceeds the 
limits, which presents an acute problem of chronic overcrowding. 

' Minimuin Jail standards (1952 ed.) pp. 13-14. 



^ Mi 

San Francisco City Prison- 
Cell, felon section. 


San Francisco City Prison- 
Cell, misdemeanor section. 
Mattresses are provided 
only for felons. 

San Francisco City Prisor 
Women's drunk tank. 


A study of the menus indicates that the food served does not meet 
the nutritional standards established by the Board of Corrections. - 
The principal meal is served at noon, when the least number of inmates 
are confined — after the morning release rush is over and before the 
evening- intake rush begins. Tliere are, of course, a "light breakfast" 
and an "evening snack" served. 

There are no facilities for fumigating or delousing the bedding and 
clothing. Vector control is attempted by use of DDT sprayed from 
hand dispensers, "every two or three days." While the use of DDT as 
a delousing agent is regarded by some to be a safe practice, there is 
still need to use this compound with discretion and care. Indiscriminate 
use, or repetitive use in circumstances where much of the DDT dust 
finds its way into the body cavities and subsequently into the gastro 
intestinal tract and bloodstream of those subjected to such practice, can 
cause injurious effects.^ 

There are no rehabilitative programs in operation at the city prison. 

Strictly from a physical, functional point, much could be done by 
merely employing — with use of inmate labor, possibly — rudimentary 
housecleaning procedures. We recognize that there may be difficulties 
in initiating rehabilitative or recreational programs in an old and anti- 
quated facility, but no reason can be perceived which would justify 
discontinuance of basic cleaning and sanitary procedures. What we 
observed in the San Francisco City Prison forcefully brought to mind 
conditions extant and reported in many jails 15 years ago. It was then 
recommended, as a first and practical step, and we here recommend : 
"Many of the deplorable conditions could easily (be) remedied by a 
little soap and water, paint and ingenuity. ' ' ^ 

This subcommittee first visited the city jail in June, 1960, and found 
the above described intolerable conditions. We again visited the facility 
on Sunday evening, November 20, 1960, and found substantially the 
same sordid conditions. 

As of the date of our November, 1960, visit, we were advised that 
over 65,000 inmates have been incarcerated in the prison. We were also 
told that there are only 47 blankets for the 26 three-man cells in the 
men's section of the jail. This means that there are approximately two 
blankets per cell; yet, we observed (and were told) that there were as 
many as seven inmates incarcerated in these three-men cells, which 
measure roughly 6 feet by 7 feet. The floors of the cells were, as we had 
observed six months earlier, dirty and littered. The walls of the cells 
were dirty and marked. In many instances, particularly the visiting 
and interrogation rooms, profane markings were prominently on the 
walls without the slightest indication that an effort had been, or would 
be, made to remove these indecent markings. 

We again inspected the kitchen maintained within the facility and 
found it untidy and unsanitary. Food was sitting out, uncovered and 
unref rigerated ; yet it could not be explained to us whether the food 
was refuse or would be used at a subsequent meal. Dirty mops were 
stored in a corner, and the floor of the kitchen was in need of scrubbing. 
Filled trash and garbage containers were sitting around the kitchen, 

2/rt. pp. 20-23. 

3 See, Hayes & Durham, "The Effects of Known Repeated Oral Doses of Chlorophe 

Nothane (DDT)," 162 Journal of Am. Med. Ass'n, October 27, 1956. 
* Report, Assembly Interim Committee on County and City Jails, 1946, p. 42. 


and {greasy dishwater had been left standing in the utility sinks. These 
conditions were observed by the subcommittee approximately at 10 
o'clock p.m., long after the close of regular duty hours in the kitchen. 

On revisiting the women's section of the prison, we were impressed 
with the cleanliness and tidiness of this section. Each cell bunk is fur- 
nished with a mattress and blankets. Even in the Avomen's drunk tank 
the floor was covered with mattresses, while in the men's section we 
were advised that it is standard operating procedure not to pad the 
drunk tank cells with mattresses because of the possibility that the 
"drunks will soil them." The same procedure is followed on the row of 
cells provided for male narcotic addicts. 

We have discussed the conditions of the San Francisco City Prison 
in detail not as an expose, but to factually show Avhat can happen when 
basic and essential custodial functions are neglected or, for whatever 
reason, discontinued. 

"We were advised during our first visit that the present facility is to 
be discontinued in use upon completion of a new facility in 1961. We 
made a second visit to the city prison aware of these plans. While we 
commend the city for this step in recognizing the need and making 
provision for a new facility, we cannot accept this fact as an apologia 
for present conditions. We strongly condemn and deplore the condi- 
tions extant in the present facility. The obvious indifference and absence 
of effort to maintain the present facility according to acceptable stan- 
dards cannot be condoned. As we noted in our discussion of the Oak- 
land City Jail where a new facility is currently under construction 
also, a continuous effort is made to maintain the present facility as an 
acceptable custodial institution. 

The possibility of boarding some of the San Francisco City prisoners 
out to Alameda County for an agreed upon j^cr diem charge was sug- 
gested to the chief jailer. Such an arrangement would be an effective 
short term alleviative for the overcrowded conditions at the city prison. 
On our visit to the Alameda County facility, Sheriff Gleason advised 
us that, even though the county currently boards city prisoners from 
several cities within the county in addition to those from Marin County, 
there is still ample space to accommodate additional inmates from other 
jurisdictions. We strongly recommend to the City of San Francisco 
that this and other similar arrangements be explored in order that the 
present chronic overcrowding problem at the city prison may be cured 
pending completion of the new jail for those inmates held long enough 
to justify such "boarding-out" detention. 

In its 1956 study of the detentional facilities of the City and County 
of San Francisco, the Board of Corrections recommended that a study 
be made "to determine the feasibility of consolidation of the city and 
county jail facilities under the administration of the sheriff."^ It was 
pointed out in the report that under law, administration of county de- 
tentional facilities is a primary function of the sheriff, while adminis- 
tration of the city facility is merely a secondary function of the chief 
of police; his primary function being that of law enforcement. It was 
pointed out in the report that in Santa Clara County, a neighboring 
county, a similar consolidation arrangement has worked well and, more 
important, consolidation would reduce many areas of duplication of 

•At page 12. 


services. The overlapping was sharply pointed up : ^ "Within an area 
of one city block, there are two separate jails, each a self-contained 
unit. There are two booking systems, two dispensaries, two commis- 
saries, two kitchens, two laundries and last, but not least, two personnel 
organizations. ..." 

Duplication is costly. Proper correctional services are costly, and 
where savings can be effected and services improved by eliminating 
inhibitive practices without imperiling the two programs, we heartily 
recommend such a course. In addition, in San Francisco, because of the 
dual nature of the local governmental units, consolidation of correc- 
tional services and facilities would appear to be not only desirable 
from the standpoint of efficiency and simplicity in organization and 
operation, but would mutually represent savings in tax dollars to both 
units of government. 

(b) County Jail No. 7 

The central county jail can be described as clean and generally well 
operated. The physical structure, however, is very old, poor and un- 
serviceable for present-day needs. 

This facility is strictly a custodial establishment. Except for those 
retained to do janitorial work and other maintenance services on the 
premises of Jail No. 1, all sentenced prisoners are transferred to Jail 
No. 2, at San Bruno. 

In the Assembly Interim Committee on County and City Jails' re- 
port in 1946, the San Francisco central jail was favorably commented 
upon. ^ It was noted that, although the facility was generally clean, 
well administered and serviceable, there was need for much improve- 
ment. This observation is still applicable today. It is commendable for 
a county to maintain clean and on the whole acceptable facilities. 

As is generally true of all city and county central jails, there are no 
rehabilitative programs in operation at Jail No. 1. Religious services 
and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings are in operation, however. 

(c) County Jail No. 2— San Bruno 

San Bruno is the main facility of San Francisco County. Like 
county jail No. 1, it is administered by the sheriff's department. Prac- 
tically all sentenced prisoners, both male and female, are sent there. 

This facility was first opened in 1934. It is a maximum security 
institution with a capacity for 600 men, housed in the main structure, 
and 50 women, kept in a separate building. 

During our visit at San Bruno, we w^ere impressed with the general 
cleanliness. It was very evident that a high premium is placed on 
healthful and sanitary surroundings. Yet on the whole, the San Bruno 
facility has not progressed in the area of initiation of treatment pro- 
grams for the inmates. Like the downtown facility, the San Bruno 
branch was favorably commented upon 15 years ago by the Assembly 
Interim Committee on County and City Jails. But as we observed 
earlier, to maintain the status quo when there is urgent need for 
constant progress, improvement and change in local correctional sys- 
tems is, realistically, a backward step. 


~ Op. cit. supra, note 4, p. 45. 


The facility's layout eneompasses approximately 150 acres. A farm 
program is carried on by the male prisoners, and a sewing industry 
by the women. The farming generally absorbs approximately 400 of 
the male prisoners, leaving 200 or more idle. It has been stated that 
Sherirt' Carborry generally assigns only those with relatively long 
sentences to do the work, only those with short sentences, such as five 
to ten days, are left idle. 

We found no objectionable practices with respect to the handling, 
preparation or service of food. And on the whole, the daily diet was 
such as would satisfy the Board of Corrections' nutritional require- 

The major objectionable feature of the San Bruno facility is the 
lack of definite rehabilitative programs. The present facility is in 
essence a bastille; it was set up, as we described earlier, as a "maximum 
security" institution, yet the vast majority of prisoners sent there 
do not need such close detention. In its present state, then, this facility 
is ill-adapted to the correctional needs of the prisoners who make up 
the bulk of its inmate load. The consequences of this hiatus between 
purpose and function of the county's main facilit}^ naturally is reflected 
in Avhat is being done or is contemplated. 

There is a noticeable void in rehabilitation programs. Currently, 
the major treatment program at San Bruno is conducted by the 
Northern California Service League, a nonsectarian, private organiza- 
tion. The NCSL's program consists of, primarily, (1) social services 
such as assistance in employment and contacting friend or family and 
(2) counseling, which has been described in detail by Mr. Joseph Silver, 
executive secretarj^, infra. While the worth and effectiveness of these 
programs cannot be questioned, it is a matter of concern as to whether 
NCSL, because of its own budgetary and personnel limitations, can 
provide an extensive enough program to meet the needs of a facility 
the size of San Bruno. Our suggestion is that the county itself should 
expand needed rehabilitative programs while at the same time co- 
operating and working with NCSL. 

Because of the high percentage of chronic inebriates committed to 
San Bruno, there has also been a real effort to initiate a treatment 
program. In the facility itself, a part-time psychiatrist, psychologist 
and two ease workers (employed full time) operate a treatment center. 
The primary job of this group is to operate what may be termed an 
inpatient clinic for alcoholics. Inmates are screened and counseled in 
an effort to get them to seek further care and treatment from an out- 
l)atient clinic upon release. 

This program is to be commended. It represents a step in the right 
direction, and we recommend that otlier localities examine this pro- 
gram and its effectiveness. 

(1) Sacramento City Jail 

The physical ])lant of tlio Sacramento City Jail is very poor. The 
structure is, as unfortunately too many other local structures, old and 
dilapidated. In lO.lO, however, the city installed very elaborate drunk 
tanks to accommodate the rather large percentage of drunk arrestees. 

The drunk tanks are, according to penological standards, considered 


very good. They are enclosed with tempered glass fronts and a desk 
is situated in a central location so that there is complete observation 
of all tanks at all times. We are advised that these new features have 
greatly reduced the number of "accidents," fights and injuries that 
generally occur in a drunk tank. 

With respect to cleanliness and other sanitary conditions, the city 
facility falls far below acceptable standards. Conditions could accu- 
rately be described as bad. 

While this facility has improved from the sordid conditions found 
in 1946, there is still a very urgent need for improvement. Here much 
could be done simply by employing basic housecleaning procedures. 

Tliere are, no treatment programs in operation. The facility is strictly 
for short-term holding — custodial ; consequently, nothing more is 

The subcommittee believes that the Sacramento City Jail should be 
among the exemplary penal institutions in the State. Here we have a 
facility located in the capital of the State, close to all of the services and 
advantages a seat of government has ; yet we find the city 's custodial 
facility operated in such a way that basic health and sanitary standards 
are violated. 

(2) Sacramento County Central Jail 

The central county jail which is situated across the street from and 
connected to the city jail, is an old and generally antiquated facility. 
A new wing to this facility was recently added. 

The overall physical condition of this facility was good. There is, how- 
ever, much room for improvement and housekeeiping. But when present- 
day conditions are contrasted with conditions reported and condemned 
in 1946, there has been a real measure of progress made at the Sacra- 
mento County Central Jail. Conditions today cannot be described as 
"deplorable," as was the case in 1946. 

Yet we must emphasize that all is not well. While the overall admin- 
istration of the facility is good ; that is, maintenance, general sanitary 
conditions, and acceptable food, there are no treatment programs in 
effect. There are, we are advised, a weekly group counseling service 
conducted by a representative from the Department of Corrections and 
a female county jjrobation officer for women inmates, but nothing for 
men. There is also an exercise dock on the roof of the jail, but only 
trusties are permitted to use it, which means that most prisoners must 
sit in total idleness for the duration of their sentences. It has been sug- 
gested to us that due to the shortage in staff, it has not been possible to 
assign a staff member to the task of supervising the exercise dock, hence 
it is not utilized to the fullest extent. 

There are no librarj^ facilities available despite the fact that suf- 
ficient proffers of books and other assistance have been made. The prob- 
lem here seems to be one of indifference, rather than concern. As we 
have repeatedly stated, one of the great and almost totally untapped 
sources for assistance in improving local jail programs is private, in- 
terested groups and individuals. Too often, unfortunatelj^, this source 
of aid is overlooked or simply not sought. 

The sheriff does, however, permit friends, etc., to give magazines to 
inmates, provided the publication is on the sheriff's approved list. 


Sacramento City jail, 
shoe storage, 
Assemblymon Bane. 

Sacramento City jail- 
Auxiliary kitchen. 
Assemblyman Kilpatrick. 


^J2jBt'*;tit ^Y 






m ^ 

.^...jst^sgrn . . H 

Sacramento City jail cell, 
inspected by (from I. to r. 
Assemblymen Bane, 
Kilpatrick and Crown. 


While this practice is basically a good one under the circumstances, a 
too rigorous censorship may well defeat the potential good such a pro- 
gram offers. Understandably there may be a need for some kind of 
censorship of materials to be read by inmates in a penal institution, but 
when this procedure is used without proper evaluation of the types of 
publications that are to be approved, much is lost by keeping out not 
only innocuous popular paperbacks, but other publications of scholastic, 
scientific and literary merit. 

(3) Sacramento County Jail at Franklin 

From the standpoint of physical structure, the Sacramento County 
branch jail is a very good facility. It has a capacity of 750 and is essen- 
tially a road camp. It is maintained according to acceptable standard of 
cleanliness. From the menus, the food served is nutritional and would 
meet the basic caloric requirements set up by the Board of Corrections. 

But despite such a commendable physical outlay, space and cleanli- 
ness, there is a very definite absence of treatment programs at Frank- 
lin. As we stated supra, the camp is essentially a road camp, conse- 
quently many of the inmates are employed in public building and 
construction work. But there is also truck gardening, cement block 
making, and a brick plant operated by the Franklin branch. This of 
course provides additional sources of employment for the inmates. But 
apart from these work programs, there are no treatment programs as 
such in operation. This circumstance sharply points up the real values 
in a prison system. The worth of a facility is not the value of its phys- 
ical plant or the amount of money spent on its operations, but what 
the stay in the facility does for the inmate. Manifestly, little can be 
accomplished in the way of effective assistance to those in need of spe- 
cialized treatment and care where no programs designed for this pur- 
pose are utilized. While we are impressed with the Franklin branch 
jail, we strongly urge immediate action with respect to the institution 
of treatment programs at Franklin. The full measure of this facility 
is yet to be realized because of the one-sided program now extant. 


The San Joaquin facilities are located about seven miles south on 
Highway 50 from Stockton. In 1955, the county added a women's sec- 
tion to the facility, and in 1959, a central jail facility was added pri- 
marily for custodial purposes. Thus, all of the San Joaquin detentional 
facilities are located in the same general area. 

As discussed in detail infra, the City of Stockton uses these facilities 
exclusively. It has no municipal lockup. 

Generally, employment, library facilities, religious services, food, 
clothing, etc., are very good, but there is little in terms of rehabilita- 
tive programs. 

It has been said that San Joaquin "has the best exercising arrange- 
ment in the State. ' ' The exercise area is arranged and enclosed in such 
a way that every prisoner, including those who present real security 
risks, can go out and freely exercise. We were advised that the area 
is used daily. 

Sacramento County jail. 
Day room cell. 



Sacramento County jai 
laundry storeroom, inspected 
by, (from I. to r.), 
Mrs. Pamela C. Thompson, 
consultant. Assemblymen 
Bane and Kilpatrick. 

Sacramento County jail 
kitchen, (I. to r.). 
Assemblymen Bane 
and Kilpatrick. 


Another interesting feature of the exercise area is that there is an 
entrance to the library from the exercise area. And because the entire 
area is adequately enclosed, prisoners are allowed to travel freely to 
and from the library while in the exercise area. We may also add that 
there are separate library facilities for both the central and branch 
units even though the two are located in the same area. The staff ap- 
peared to have a genuine interest in the inmates, but there was no 
tangible expression of this attitude in concrete treatment programs. 

One of the notable advantages of this combined system is that of 
food preparation. All food for the three units is prepared at the farm. 
And the food served, as we have indicated above, is very good and is 
well within, if not be^yond, the nutritional standards set by the Board 
of Corrections. 

The San Joaquin facility represents real progress since 1946. Like 
the Sacramento County facilities, San Joaquin too had been the object 
of much criticism because of the conditions found to exist at that time. 
While we were encouraged and impressed with recent developments in 
San Joaquin, we nevertheless must urge immediate action with respect 
to the institution of treatment programs. As we have many times 
stated, a physical plant no matter how modern, serviceable and habit- 
able, cannot replace the need for systematic care and treatment pro- 
grams. With such a physical facility, it should be much easier to in- 
stitute needed rehabilitative programs. 

While inspecting the San Joaquin facility, we observed the visiting 
area and the use of intercommunication type phones provided for 
visitors and inmates. We were advised that attorneys, on professional 
visits with inmate-clients, often use the regular visiting facilities, even 
though special consultation facilities are available. Use of the regular 
visitors ' facilities by attorneys is not wholly voluntary ; a specific re- 
quest for permission to use the special facilities must always be made, 
consequently, attorneys unfamiliar with this practice, often use the 
regular visitors' facilities. 

This alone would not necessarily be objectionable. But we were also 
told that the visiting intercommunication phones ''are tapped." And 
in these circumstances, the attorney-client privilege is violated, for the 
cloak of confidentiality of a client's disclosures to his attorney is mean- 
ingless when enforcement or custodial officers can freely monitor such 
conferences. (See Penal Code Sec. 875). The confidential nature of this 
relationship in criminal cases has long been recognized by the courts 
of our State, and has generally been protected whether the accused is 
at-large or incarcerated. For example, it has been held that a regula- 
tion preventing a prisoner from consulting with counsel otherwise than 
through a close mesh wire screen (In re Synder, 62 C.A. 697, 217 P. 777 
(1923)); limiting the hours for consultation that are outside those 
which an attorney normally devotes to professional work (In re Quails, 
58 C.A. 2d 330, 136 p. 2d 341 (1943)) ; insisting upon the presence of 
an alienist in the conference such as a court-appointed hypnotist, inter- 
preter or psychiatrist (In re Ochse, 38 Cal. 2d 230, 238 P. 2d 561 
(1931)); or granting the right to confer with counsel "under the 
surveillance of officers" (Cornell v. Sup. Ct., 338 P. 2d 447 (1959)'), 
constitute a deprivation of the right to free and confidential consulta- 
tion between attorney and client. 

I 10.%;^ 

San Joaquin County jail 
men's cell. 

San Joaquin County jail 
barracks, women's 



_ _ Ji ffliil 


San Joaquin County 
jail, library. 



In our view the practice followed in the San Joaquin jail is patently 
contrary to decisional law. The right to assistance by counsel includes 
the right to an adequate opportunity for consultation in the prepara- 
tion of a defense. And where attorneys, in treating with their incarcer- 
ated clients are in effect compelled to use a "tapped phone" in order 
to communicate, such a practice makes a mockery of the right of un- 
fettered consultation. We are at a loss as to why such an illegal prac- 
tice persists, except that, perhaps, no effective steps have been taken 
to change it. We strongly urge that this practice be discontinued, for 
it can bring no credit to the correctional system of San Joaquin County. 

(1) City Jails 

In the City of Los Angeles the police department, similar to the ar- 
rangement in San Francisco, operates the city jail system. All jail 
activities within the department are placed under a bureau of correc- 
tions, headed by a deputy chief of police. 

The City Bureau of Corrections is composed of two divisions: (1) 
the jail division and (2) the welfare and rehabilitation division. The 
jail division operates the main jail and has functional supervision of 
the several substation jails. Its primary function is the care and cus- 
tody of both sentenced and unsentenced male and female inmates. The 
welfare and rehabilitation division also has a custodial function, but 


It was reported that the women prisoners have fashioned 1,830 dolls and toys for 

distribution to underprivileged children during the 1960 Christmas Season. 


in addition, it is concerned with the administration and operation of 
rehabilitative pro<?rams, social agency contact, parole investigation and 
snpervision of parolees. 

In 1954 the new facility at Saugus was added to the city jail system. 
The citizens of Los Angeles voted a municipal bond issue in excess of 
$2,000,000 for construction of this rehabilitation facility. 

The new facility is a minimum security institution. jMost of the in- 
mates are alcoholics. 

During our visit we were greatly impressed with the overall condi- 
tions of the farm and the programs in operation. The farm is very 
clean and attractive. We were advised that inmates are required to 
bathe at least twice each week. Three meals are served each day, with 
a minimum caloric value of 2.500. Much of the food used in the city 
jails including the center at Saugus is produced at the Saugus Farm. 
Consequently, the city not only saves by producing many food items 
on the farm, but this activity — farming — itself a form of vocational 
training, offers an additional avenue of activity to many of the inmates. 

There are several effective vocational programs in operation at Sangus. 
Perhaps here, the objective of seeking to make each inmate produc- 
tive, is more closely followed than at any other local facility. As we 
pointed out above, a vegetable farm is operated, a garage, a machine 
shop, and a carpenter shop and a concrete block plant. Whether it be 
nursery work, welding and forge, carpenter or garage, classes are con- 
ducted by officers so that some formalized training is provided. Visual 
aids are also used. Thus an inmate may receive enough training and 
experience not only to occupy his time during his sentence duration in 
a wholesome way, but also prepare him for possible future work upon 

We found the medical staff to be nominal ; it clearly was not adequate 
enough to meet the needs and demands on it. Although the Sangus 
facility primarily accommodates alcoholic inmates, there was no syste- 
matic foUowup program for released alcoholics to assess the rate of 
cure of those treated. 

With respect to the central city jail, the subcommittee Avas informed 
that there were 247,000 bookings made in 1959 by the city police. And 
while the recordkeeping system used appeared to be a good one, we 
were advised that dispositions are not always sent to the Criminal Iden- 
tification and Investigation and Federal Bureau of Investigation. This 
of course means that many persons are arrested on a felony charge, 
their photographs and fingerprints are forwarded to the CII and FBI 
with a felony arrest report, but no subsequent information is foi-warded 
to show that no complaint was ever filed or other nonprosccutive dis- 
position made. Thus a case of mistaken identity, for example, can 
create a lifelong felony arrest record with serious social and employ- 
ment consequences. 

In the central jail facility we observed a large sign in the booking 
area notifying prisoners of their right to make one telephone call after 
booking. However, Ave Avere advised that here, as Avas the case in many 
of the above institutions, the prisoners Avere not booked until after 
they had been interrogated; thus, the iiriniary aim of guaranteeing the 
telephone call is effectively negated. 


111 addition, with the veto of Assembly Bill No. 276 (requiring booking 
within three hours after arrest) after the 1960 Legislative Session, it is 
still possible to hold an inmate incommunicado for a time (See P.O. 
Sec. 825) with impunity. 

The cleanliness, good food program, and alert personnel of the Los 
Angeles City jails reflect the driving personality of Chief of Police 
William Parker. In these respects the subcommittee found the Los 
Angeles City jails outstanding.*^ 

(2) Los Angeles County Jails 

The structural makeup and operation of the county jail system is 
briefly described elsewhere in this report. The county's central jail 
serves as a detentional facility only, and like those of many other 
counties, unfortunately, it is vastly overcrowded. As is always the 
case, this problem generates many others. To mention a few of the 
more salient ones observed: (1) the limited exercise yard on the roof 
has forced a reduction in the amount of time each male inmate may 
utilize this facility. Female inmates have no similar facility. (2) Male 
inmates can have access to a shower only once each week; and (3) the 
visiting room is so small and crowded that no privacy is possible. 

We found the food to be both plentiful and fairly appetizing. 

We v/ere told that an arrestee is allowed to make a telephone call 
before booking (See P.C. Sec. 851.5) unlike the practice followed in 
the city jails. Everyone booked is given a medical examination for 
social (VD) diseases and a chest X-ray. 

Shortly after the subcommittee visited this facility, the Los Angeles 
electorate approved a county bond issue to finance a new women's 
jail, and the new central jail for male inmates is being financed by 
funds borrowed from the Ketirement System, so that present objection- 
able conditions should be eliminated in the near future. 

The branch farm and rehabilitation centers are described and com- 
mented upon elsewhere in this report. But to underscore our favorable 
impression, particularly with the Wayside Raneho and Mira Loma 
facilities, we again commend Los Angeles County for such an exemplary 
correctional system. Fifteen years ago when the Interim Committee on 
County and City Jails visited the Ijos Angeles County facilities there 
were hopeful expressions of continued progress and improvement in 
their penal system; and on our recent visit to Los Angeles County, 
we witnessed many of the tangible accomplishments that have been 
made during the past 15 years. 

(1) The "Court House Jail" 

The Alameda County jail system is administered by the sheriff's 
department. The central jail, commonly referred to as the "Court 
House Jail," is a maximum security holding facility. It has a rated 
capacity of 120 men, but oftentimes houses many more, temporarily, 
until the excess of inmates can be transferred to the Santa Rita Reha- 
bilitation Center. 

"* The Sausus branch facility has been designated as the centei- for municipal gov- 
ernmental operations in case of a nuclear attaclv. 



Alameda County "Court House" jail, dayroom cell. 

Alameda County "Court House" jail, men's cell. 


"We found the facility very clean and sanitary and well ventilated. 
We were advised that the bedding is changed and laundered weekly 
for holdover inmates. New inmates are given clean issues of bedding 
upon incarceration. A small laundry is operated within the facility 
by trustees to take care of the laundry needs. 

From the menus, the food is very good and clearly measures up to 
the Board of Corrections' standards. It is prepared in a kitchen within 
the facility by trusty cooking. Two and one-half meals are served each 
day consisting of (a) breakfast, (b) lunch or the "main meal" and 
(c) a light snack (e.g. sandwiches and drink) in the evenings. We were 
advised that this arrangement is much better for inmates who are 
closely confined. 

A small barbershop facility is maintained for the inmates. 

A dayroom type cell is provided for the inmates so that, during the 
day, inmates are removed from their cells and can engage in recrea- 
tional activities such as card playing, checkers and reading. We were 
told that an effort is made to "keep the prisoners out of the cells as 
much as possible." 

A small library collection and magazines are available for the in- 
mates. In addition, radio programs are provided through a series of 
amplifiers situated in the cell dayrooms. The radio programs are modu- 
lated in such a way that, for those inmates who do not wish to listen, 
they are not disturbed by the constant play of radio programs. 

Two hospital cell rows are maintained within the central facility 
and are especially equipped for ill and convalescing inmates. 

What was said by our predecessor committee in 1946 concerning the 
Alameda County Central Jail is equally applicable today: 

The Alameda County Jail could well be a source of inspiration to 
anyone believing that jails must be by [the] very nature of the 
population and circumstances dirty and have a bad odor, filthy beds 
and unwholesome food. Great credit must go to Sheriff Gleason and 
the Alameda County Board of Supervisors for setting an example 
for doubting Thomases to follow. 

(2) Santa Rifa Rehabilifation Center 

The Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center is the branch facility of the 
Alameda County correctional system. It contains a custodial, rehabili- 
tative, investigative and patrol division of the correctional system. This 
facility was first opened in 1947 to introduce a rehabilitative approach 
to the handling and treatment of miscreants. Since we have discussed 
this facility and its programs in detail elsewhere in this report, we will 
not restate that discussion here, except to briefly describe the conditions 
and our evaluation of the Greystone maximum security unit located at 
Santa Rita. 

The Greystone facility has a rated capacity of 175 men. It was clean 
and sanitary. Similar to the ' ' Court House Jail ' ' two cell-type dayrooms 
are provided for the prisoners so that, during the day, the inmates are 
removed from their cells and put into the dayrooms where limited 
recreational activities may be engaged in. 

The food is the same as that provided in the minimum security area, 
except that only two and one-half meals are served. Feeding is done 
in the dayroom cells and in the individual cells. 

2 — L-2158 


Aerial view — Santa Ri 
Rehabilitation Center. 


Santa Rita, men's 

Santa Rita, outdoor 


The women's maximum security section, located within the women's 
section, was likewise very clean, well ventilated and spacious. The pro- 
cedures in this unit follow much the same course as those followed in 
the men's unit. 

To underscore our favorable impression of Santa liita and its ex- 
emplary programs, we again commend Sheriff Gleason and his staff for 
their fine and effective work. 

The program at Santa Rita has also been the subject of special 
interest hy our predecessor committees. In 1950 the Assembly Interim 
Committee on Crime and Corrections favorably reported on this 
facility, and described the institution as another outstanding example 
"to make reliabilitation a meaningful Avord." 

(3) Oakland City Jail 

The city jail, located in the city hall, is a custodial, maximum security 
facility administered by the city police department. In spite of anti- 
([uated equipment, and cramped space, the staff of this facility is doing 
an excellent job. 

The facility was on the whole very clean and tidy. We were told that 
the bedding is changed weekly for holdover inmates, and new inma.tes 
are given clean issues. Blankets are laundered on the average of once 
every three months. A small laundry is maintained within the facility, 
operated by trusties. 

The rated capacity of the jail is 250 inmates. In the men's section, 
the holding facilities are (1) the "back cells," used to house felons and 
security risk, and (2) the misdemeanant dormitories. Drunk arrestees, 
which we were advised constitute over ' ' 50 percent ' ' of the arrestees, are 
also housed in a dormitory used as a drunk tank. A trusty is assigned 
to each dormitory whose duties are to "assign bunks," and report any 
"disturbances" to the floor officer. While this practice, without more, 
appears to be innocuous, conceivably an improperly supervised trusty 
left to OA^ersee a dormitory cell could re-institute the infamous "kan- 
garoo court" practices which were outlawed after our predecessor 
committee exposed this practice in 1946. 

Two and one-half meals, similar to the arrangement at the Alameda 
County central jail, are served each da}'. And from the menus, the food 
provided would meet recommended nutritional standards. The food is 
prepared in a kitchen within the facility. And while it was generally 
clean, the floor quite noticeably was in need of scrubbing. One of the 
several commendable features of this facility, however, was the dining 
room facilit,y. All inmates, we were told, except those housed in the 
"back cells," are brought into the dining room for their meals. 

A barbershop is provided for the inmates, and trustees with a ton- 
sorial know-how are utilized for barbering. The jail's physician visits 
twice each week (Monday and AVednesday) and checks the inmates. 
Emergency cases are sent out to Highland Hospital, a county institu- 
tion. A small dispensary is maintained within the jail and a staff mem- 
ber "holds sick call" each morning and administers whatever 
medication is prescribed in special cases by the jail physician. 

Although there is a small exercise dock on the roof of the jail, it is 
not used except for the purpose of "getting the prisoners out of their 
cells" during the cleaning period. While this is not a condemnable 

Oakland City jail, men 
misdemeanor dormitory 
(From I. to r.) 
Assemblymen Kilpotrich 
and Petris. 

Oakland City jail, kite 
Assemblyman Kilpatric 
in background. 


practice, we suggest that, with this facility, prisoners could be regu- 
larly taken out on the dock for a prescribect period if for no other 
reason than to get a bit of sunshine and fresh air, because within the 
jail Ave noticed a definite lack of proper ventilation and an odor in the 
men 's dormitories and ' ' back cells. ' ' 

We were also advised that the jail maintains a small collection of 
books and "the more popular" magazines for the inmates. 

In the women's section, we found the dormitories very clean, spacious 
and better ventilated than in the men's section. Tables suitable for 
reading, card playing, checkers and the like were in this section, al- 
though they were not provided on the men's side. 

As we pointed out above, the county jail which is adjacent to the city 
prison in the same building, was clean and sanitary compared to the 
city prison. And the Oakland city jail, when compared to the San 
Francisco city prison, likewise is an excellent facility. 

The Oakland jail is 46 years old and a new jail is currently being 
constructed. The San Francisco city jail is 48 years old, and similarly 
a new jail is being readied for use in 1961. Here the similarity ends. 
In San Francisco the contemplated move to new quarters has become 
the standard explanation for present sloven conditions and ineptitude ; 
whereas in Oakland, the facility is maintained as if no move were 
contemplated. This is as it should be. The Oakland city jail is an ex- 
ample of what a locality can do with an old, antiquated facility. In 
our view, we can perceive no reason or circumstance which would relieve 
a jail staff of the basic neeessit}^ of maintaining minimal standards of 
decency and cleanliness within the facility. 





The U.S. Bureau of Prisons inspects local jails throufiliout the coun- 
try because of the necessity of boai'dinp: some federal prisoners in local 
facilities. The inmate boarding function is performed by a locality 
under contract with the federal government. But before a contract is 
let, ail inspection of the facility in question is made. 

The overall rating generally covers 16 functional categories, such as 
administrative organization, food, clothing and bedding, housing, sani- 
tation, light and ventihition, laundry facilities, medieal care, discipline, 
segregation, work program and recreation.** In a communication to this 
subcommittee, the assistant director of the Bureau of Prisons trans- 
mitted a listing of California jails now on the "authorized list" for 
federal use. 

It can be seen from the illustration that, of those on the approved list, 
there are variances as to the approved purposes. All listed Avere 
aj)proved for merely a custodial function for male offenders awaiting 
court action or removal to commence serving of sentence, Avhile onh' 
about two-thirds of the approved jails were authorized for sentence 

Still fewer jails are approved for custody of female offenders as to 
a purely custodial function, while an even lesser number are approved 
for custody of females serving sentences. These comparisons underscore 
our observations concerning the need for facilities and programs for 
females in loeal jails. 

Few local facilities were approved for detention of juveniles. This, 
too, underscores tiie need for greater effort in tiiis regard, in view of the 
fact that, by law, all facilities must maintain juvenile inmates 


The Special Study Commission devised a special rating chart cov- 
ering the functional categories listed above Avith a numerical value 
ranging from 1.00 to 8.00. Jails rated from 1.00 to 1.50 were charac- 
terized as "very poor," from 1.51 to 2.00 as "poor," and from 2.01 
to 2.50 as "fair," and 2.51 to 3.00 as "good." These numerical 
valuations, while fraught with inherent limitations and oversimplifica- 
tions, do provide a rough method of contrasting the various jail facili- 
ties and the areas where high or low ratings are most prevalent. 
The rating "good," it should be said, approximates that of the Board 
of Corrections' minimum standards. 

Tiie total ratings of all county jails (58) were as follows: 4-good 
(or .standard); 19-fair; 24-poor; and 11-very poor. In summary, it 

"The Bureau of Prisons discontinued publication of jail ratings in 1951. Our illustra- 
tion is merely a listing of the local jails approved for federal use. 




■a -a 
o o 

5 Sg 

(U «<3 O ■ 


£ C 3 S 
m o O ^ . 


' o2 


J2 3 O 3 

< m c K 

^ c4 CO -^ 


>0 «5 

>> a 

I a, o o 
S S czj ; 

t>^ 00 03 ' 

i J3 




:S3 2^ a fe g 2.^ 
lo CO t-^ CO ai o *-* 

i5 5 

hJ _c3 ^ 

!Xi za &2 :r2 zn \ 
' -^ if5 CO t^ < 

IM (M C^ C^ C^ (M i 


can be seen that slightly more than 60 percent of the jails were rated 
as poor or very poor. In the specific areas, as summarized by the 
commission, '° 

"The typical jail was functioning best in the areas of (1) in- 
mate discipline; (2) employment; (3) records and booking; (4) 
sanitation; (5) food and feeding procedures; and (6) personnel 
standards. Intermediate quality of performance was found in : 
(7) condition of inmates; (8) physical plant; (9) medical serv- 
ices; (10) administrative organization and philosophy; (11) re- 
lease procedures; (12) bedding; and (13) clothing. The poorest 
performance was in respect to functions of: (14) inmate activites; 
(15) social and psychiatric services; and (16) canteen services. 

"When adjusted for size of population, the performance of the 
jails was found to be best in: (1) personnel standards; (2) in- 
mate discipline; (3) medical services; (4) sanitation; (5) records 
and booking; (6) employment; and (7) food and feeding pro- 

These ratings and listings point up one fact: progress has been 
made, but much more is needed. And while the Special Study Com- 
mission confined its concern to county jails, the conclusions there 
drawn can generally be applied to city jails as well. 

" Part I, p. n of the report. 


This subcommittee was greath^ impressed with many of the excellent 
and effective rehabilitative programs now in operation in many local 
facilities. These efforts, it seems belie the view widely held that local 
jails should and can perform only custodial functions. We need not 
elaborate here on the deleterious effect idleness has on inmates housed 
in unsavory and ill-adapted lockups. If prevention of crime and re- 
cidivism are our basic objectives, then programs to achieve these ends 
should naturally be our main approach. We commend these localities 
for their efforts and pilotage in initiating such programs. We recom- 
ment to the Members of the Legislature, local correctional personnel 
and interested private, civic groups, that they visit and study the 
programs hereinafter discussed. We strongly feel that much can be 
learned from them, and where possible, such programs or modifica- 
tions thereof tailored to specific local needs, can be initiated in other 
areas. Our list and discussion of selected programs of course is not all- 
inclusive; there are, to be sure, many other programs which present 
an encouraging contrast to yesteryears. 


San Diego County operates five honor camps. These camps are 
administered by the county board of supervisors, with a superintend- 
ent and staff selected through civil service processes. Inmates are 
screened for transfer to the honor camps by the county classification 
committee, consisting of the sheriff, chief jailer, honor camp superin- 
tendent and jail physician. While in the screening process, all men 
are placed in a receiving unit for a minimum of three weeks, where 
they are oriented to the philosophy of the program. They are also 
given a clinical interview and psychological tests. Each screenee's 
case is then evaluated and presented to the classification committee. 
No screenee may be classified for minimum custody camp placement 
without appearing before the county classification committee. It should 
be pointed out that alcoholic cases may also be committed to the honor 
camps by the superior court on recommendation of the county psychi- 
atric board. 

Although the men in this program are short-term inmates, the pro- 
gram is operated on the philosophy that the men received are to be 
prepared for conditional release on county parole, and eligible inmates 
may seek release through such procedures. Upon application, the 
camp staff evaluates the applicant and makes a recommendation to the 
committing court in the case where the subject-inmate is serving a 
summary probation sentence, and to the county parole board when 
the subject-inmate is in custody on a "straight sentence." Those in- 
mates on formal probation are ineligible for conditional release on 



parole, but those serving (aud this frroup constitutes the bulk of 
inmates on the program) summary probation sentences and are other- 
wise eligible, may apply for a conditional release under the furlough 
l)rogram. Those serving "straight sentences" are only eligible for 

As part of the program, tliere are a limited occupational training, 
planned recreational and leisure time programs. In addition, inmates 
are paid a small daily wage, based on the type of work done. 

This program, as has been convincingly demonstrated in a brochure 
published by the superintendent, entitled, "IIow to Save $100,000," 
is illustrative of a good rehabilitative jirogram which renders a service 
to the iinnate and monetary savings to the county. '^ 

Mr. Joseph R. Silver, executive director, Northern California Serv- 
ice League, describes the new tlierajieutic community recently initiated 
by the county in a slatement to this subcommittee. 


The progress nuide since the first Crime and Corrections Committee 
inspected the facilities of Los Angeles County during its 1945 investi- 
gation is an omen to the value of legislative studies of local detentional 
facilities. The 1945 study of course signaled the beginning of many 
new innovations not only in Los Angeles County, but throughout the 
State. Aiul the contrast between the findings 15 years ago and the 
tangible progress of today is remarkable. We were indeed encouraged 
and impressed. 

The sheriff's department operates the county jails in Los Angeles; 
Biscailuz Center for Juveniles; a women's facility; six road camps; 
the AVay.side Honor Rancho and Mira Loma. The Rancho was opened 
in 1937^ and Mira Loma in 1952. 

Wayside Rancho accommodates three degrees of security inmates; 
mininuim, medium and maximum. ]\Iucli of tlic acreage of Rancho 
has been converted from desert wasteland into good farmland. The 
principal work projects are farming and animal husbandry. The 
Ranciio also operates a cement block plant and a bakery ; the latter 
serves the other department facilities and, according to a 1956 estimate, 
is credited with saving the county approximately $30,000 annually. 

The Rancho and IMira Loma are operated by tlie department's Divi- 
sion of Corrections. Each institu1ioi\ is managed l)y a captain, l)ut the 
rehabilitative services are managed by the division's Care and Treat- 
ment Section. 

Medical .services at all the department's institutions are under the 
direction of the senior jail physician. There are limited medical services 
provided at each institution with a male nurse on duty at each 24 
hours a day. 

In the treatment of tuberculosis cases, tlie Tuberculosis Association 
supplies an occupational therapist who is supplied with equipment by 
the department. There is no specific treatment program for alcoholics 
at either institution except full utilization of the services of Alcoholics 
Anonymous, a private organization. However, the work program and 

"See, California Jaila (Citizens' Advisory Committee to the Attorney General on 
Crime Prevention, September 12. 1956). pp. 48-50. 


outdoor life, it is believed by those administering the facilities, are 
promotive of physical rehabilitation. It also felt that the religious, edu- 
cational, library, hobby-craft, recreational and other activities have a 
beneficial effect on the mental health and emotional state of all inmates, 
particularly alcoholics. 

An educational program was formerly carried on at both institu- 
tions under the State Adult Education Program until the latter 's 
termination by the Legislature in 1953. Today a rather limited pro- 
gram is in operation financed by the county. At Wayside Eancho, as 
reported at the 10th Annual Training Institute for Probation, Parole 
and Institutional Staff in 1958, the education program is considered 
one of the most important phases of the rehabilitation program ; with 
an annual fund of $50,000, the sheriff's department has authorized a 
local school district to maintain a fully accredited adult school. A classi- 
fication committee evaluates the inmates for enrollment. Those approved 
are then transferred to Wayside Rancho and after further screening 
they are enrolled in a course. Classes in such subjects as basic English, 
basic arithmetic, social studies, group counseling and civics and voca- 
tional mathematics are offered. During the school year 1957-58, 41 
men earned either 8th grade promotion certificates or high school di- 
plomas. All credits are transferable to other schools. No reference is 
made on the transcript or on the diploma as to where the credits were 

The need for such a program was manifest because it was found that 
many of the inmates have never attended school, and tests conducted 
revealed that of those who had attended, the average grade level was 
only 6.4 years of training. This alarmingly low rate of formal training 
points up the need for continued and sustained efforts in this area 
when it is recalled that the average American daily newspaper is 
geared to the level of an 8th grade education. The question comes, "how 
can we, in these circumstances, hope to restore those who have for many 
reasons run afoul of the law?" Certainly it would seem that basic to 
any corrective or rehabilitative approach would be some provision for 
raising the general level of the subject's education. The by-products 
from such training and conditioning are immeasurable. In addition, 
the success of many of the treatment programs that may be utilized 
is directly related to the educational training of the subject. 

The Wayside Rancho statistics are not the isolated and exceptional 
instance; rather, it is indicative of the common case. Perhaps, state- 
wide, the percentage is higher. It is therefore of urgent need that edu- 
cational programs be instituted or re-instituted in our local facilities 
where such programs may be effectively administered. This committee, 
therefore, recommends that the Legislature re-establish an adult edu- 
cation program with appropriate safeguards relative to administration 
to insure against abuse. 

Two projects in operation at Mira Loma that should be mentioned 
are the print shop and book repair project. These programs offer ex- 
cellent vocational training, and are good rehabilitative measures. 

Hobby-craft work is encouraged for recreation and training rather 
than for the financial profit of individual inmates. Profits from these 
endeavors go into the Inmate Welfare Fund, as do canteen profits and 
barber shop earnings. Inmates at both institutions, as part of the de- 


partment's service program, repair toys to be distributed through the 
probation department's toy loan service, repair radios, make toys for 
underprivileged children, and devices for hospital use. 

Both institutions have branch libraries of the Los Angeles County 
]\Iain Library, through which they are given new as well as old books. 
The library loan service is also used. Religious and recreational services 
are highly organized and, in the latter case, a variety of activities are 
provided. In addition, inmates are given rather free and full access to 
care and treatment officers of private organizations in order to get 
assistance with their personal problems. 


As we previously pointed out, the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center 
consists of many divisions including the rehabilitation division. The 
most interesting aspect of the Santa Rita program is not the institu- 
tion itself, but the thinking behind its establishment. In its 1958 
Progress Report, the Sheriff's Department, Alameda County, reported 
Sheriff Gleason's concern: "Disturbed by the high incidence of re- 
cidivism prior to 1947, Sheriff Gleason felt that the basic requirement 
of helping the miscreant readjust to society was not being fulfilled in 
the jail atmosphere. Thus, he resolved to organize Santa Rita in such 
a manner as to correct this. In this process he directed that studies 
and research be initiated to examine tlie problem of recidivism more 
closel3\ The result of this work revealed tliat medical and physical dis- 
abilities, lack of formal education, inaptitude for trades or laek of skills 
leading to gainful emi)loyment were primary among the factors leading 
persons into conflict with the law." Thus by clearly identifying the 
problem and attempting a solution, Santa Rita came into being. 

In order to deal with the personal and physical problems of the in- 
mates, a medical staff is provided. A program of adult education under 
the auspices of the local school district was inaugurated to fulfill edu- 
cational needs. This program was in operation from 1949 until 1955, 
at which time it was curtailed because of the termination of the state 
adult education program. But during this period of operation, it is 
reported that 86 inmates completed their high school educational train- 
ing and received diplomas, while an additional 14 inmates received 
grammer school certificates. Tlie educational program was reopened in 
]\Iay 1958 but on a somewhat limited basis. 

Trade schools such as bakery, machinist, carpenter, cabinet maker, 
sheetmetal, plumber, electrician and masonry are operated by the center 
under the supervision of highly skilled artisans. Thus many inmates 
are given an opportunity to receive limited training in the specialized 

A research and treatment program operated for clironic alcoholics 
was established at the center in 1949. The details of this division is 
discussed elscAvhere in this report. A narcotic treatment clinic is also in 
progress. The details of this operation is also discussed elsewhere in 
the report. 

One of the highlights of the Santa Rita program is its farming activ- 
ities. This enterprise was started in 1947 and has steadily increased in 
rate of production. In the Annual Farm Report, 1958, the following 
output was reported : 



Crop Amount Value 

Cucumbers — 59 tons delivered to pickle company $3,330.05 

Tomatoes — 12 tons delivered to cannery 1,552.12 

Sugar beets — 446 tons delivered to Holly Sugar Co. (78.5 tons sugar) __ 6,795.58 

Sugar beet subsidy 1,791.20 

Hay— 400 tons @ $18.00 per ton (includes barley) 7,200.00 

Banana squash-^0 tons @ $80.00 per ton 3,200.00 


Beef— 25 butchered, 12,399 lbs. @ $.40 $4,821.67 

Pork — 426 butchered, 87,576 lbs. @ $.32 28,396.83 

Laml)— 51 butchered, 2,000 lbs. @ $.225 431.60 

Reclaimed grease^ — Deposited in General Fund 1,202.56 

Hides 54.42 

Wool 110.47 

Wool subsidy 23.19 

Sale of excess pigs 4,546.53 


During our visit to Santa Rita, we were advised that the hog raising 
enterprise now supplies 100 percent of all pork consumed at the center 
and the "Court House Jail." In addition, the truck gardens provide 
fresh vegetables throughout the year for the center, the ' ' Court House 
Jail," several county hospitals and the juvenile hall and boys' camp. 

With this kind of activity it can be readily seen that two objectives 
are accomplished with one operation. First, by operating a farm, the 
sheriff's department is able to reduce operational costs incurred in the 
purchase of foods. Thus operational expenditures are kept down, food 
is more economically provided and monetary savings are realized. 
Second, by providing such an activity, a large percentage of the inmate 
population is absorbed in useful and rewarding work. Thus, a form of 
rehabilitation is realized. 

In addition to the successful farm and meat producing enterprise, 
many of the center's other needs are fulfilled by the various divisions. 
For example, the Supply Section refurbishes matresses used by the 
center and "Court House Jail" and manufactures pillows, in addition 
to many other functions. The bakery, as we briefly noted earlier, cur- 
rently prepares all bakery goods consumed by the inmates at the 
center and "Court House Jail." In 1947, to illustrate the rapid growth 
of this activity, all bread was purchased commercially, only pastries 
were prepared in the center's mess. 

Another major productive enterprise at the center is the clothing 
manufacture project. This project is located in the women's section, 
and only female inmates work in this activity. 

Almost all items of inmate clothing, for both male and female, are 
produced by this unit. In addition, table linen, slippers, machine covers 
and other sundry items are made. In the 1958 Progress Report it was 
reported : 

"Each year 4,000 to 12,000 articles are made, depending upon 
the needs of the institution. Industrial sewing machines have been 
installed for the project. In addition to recovering the purchase 


price of all machines bought, the activity has consistently saved the 
count}' from $2,500 to $5,600 a year on the purchase of clothing 

In addition to the manufacture savings, additional savings are real- 
ized through the repair (mending and altering) activity carried on in 
this project. 

Before briefly noting the additional activities provided for the Avomen 
inmates at tlie center, we sliould point out that the Avomen's section is 
entirely separate. It is comi)lete -with dormitories, kitchen, dining hall, 
chapel, library, clinic, school, laundry, commissarj^ security quarters, 
booking and property rooms, projects and garden areas. In addition, a 
vocational and occupational program is available for women inmates, 
which includes such activities as sewing, housekeeping, cooking, clerical 
and other office skills. Another noteworthy project carried on in the 
women's section is dollmaking and repair for distribution to indigent 
children and orphanages. 

With respect to both the men and women's sections, we found the 
facility immaculately clean and habitable. The atmosphere was whole- 
some and conducive to physical restoration — an important ingredient 
in treatment programs. 

The inmates are served three meals per day, in modern clean cafe- 
terias, except those in the holding sections. A variety of recreational 
outlets are provided such as reading rooms, a gynniasium which is con- 
vertible to a theater, weight lifting, hor.seshoe pitching, baseball, hand- 
ball and many other activities. Religious and counseling programs are 
also in operation. 

We cannot accurately express our very favorable impression of this 
exemplary facility. As Ave stated before, Santa Rita AA^as rated first by 
the United States Bureau of Prisons jail inspectors in overall excellence 
among 571 county jails tlirouuhout the country in 1956. This recogni- 
tion and rating Avas earned in less than 10 years of operation. Not only 
does such renoAvn reflect the dedication and great Avork of Sheriff 
Gleason, but his staff at Santa Rita as well. 

Another program operated at the facility is the Sector Headquarters 
of the United States Border Patrol. This sector \A'as first located in 
Sacramento ; hoAvever, due to the lack of space in the Sacramento jail, 
it Avas moved to Santa Rita early in 1954. 

The primary function of this program is to handle illegal entrants 
into this country. The largest group of offenders encountered are en- 
trants from Mexico. 

A probation office is also maintained at the facility. Persons placed 
or probation by courts, and Avho have been incarcerated as a condition 
of probation, are regularly counseled by tAvo probation officers stationed 
at the facility "in an effort to prepare them for the contiinied ]u-oba- 
tion process once . . . [they are] returned to connnunity life." Thus 
a kind of prerelease counseling program is effectuated. 

We cannot too strongly recommend to the members of the Legisla- 
ture, local correctional personnel and interested community groups to 
visit this facility and observe its programs. 



The sleep therapy program is designed to reorient an offender's 
thinking of himself and his maladjustment as manifested by his con- 
duet which runs counter to law and the norms of society. As described 
in a report on the practice, it is not "brainwashing." In integrates 
the subconscious mind of the subject with his conscious mind, and 
thus makes possible a deeper analysis of the inner drives and motiva- 
tions. And through this uncovering process, the subject is said to be 
consciously made aware of his inner contradictions. 

Scripts are recorded on tapes. At the Woodlake Road Camp the 
tapes are played for 30 minutes each hour and a half during the 
night. At Terra Bella Road Camp eight-hour tapes play continuously, 
and the tapes are changed each week. The Tulare County peace officers 
and the Visalia Kiwanis Club each have contributed to the cost of 
securing the necessary recording and playback equipment. The script 
for the tapes are composed by a minister, a former recreational thera- 
pist, and two public defenders. Inmate participation is purely vol- 

Through the device of continuous, repetitive play of ideas and ideals 
concerning all aspects of a Avholesome life, while the subject-inmate 
is asleep, it is believed that a somnic conditioning can, and does, 
reshape the thinking of the subject in such matters as life and the 
resolution of its problems. The county is currently studying the 
effects of this program on the first one hundred subjects released from 
the camp. 

In a 1958 analysis report to the county board of supervisors, the 
Department of Corrections commended this program and recommended 
its continuance.^^ 


Marin County has, as a temporary remedial measure, entered into 
contracts with Alameda, San Francisco and Sonoma Counties for 
detention of prisoners sentenced in Marin for whom adequate quar- 
ters are not available in the county. This arrangement, as expressly 
stated, is merely temporary and is not regarded as a permanent solu- 
tion to the problem of jail overcrowding, 

A very similar arrangement, which the subcommittee had an oppor- 
tunity to observe, is in operation in Stockton where all city arrestees 
are taken to the county jail and are detained for the City of Stockton 
on an agreed upon per diem charge between the city and county. 

We were advised of similar arrangements by Sheriff Harry P. Glea- 
son of Alameda County with several municipalities within the county 
in addition to the Marin agreement. 

These arrangements, as the Department of Corrections pointed out in 
its analysis report, "Adult Detention Facilities and Treatment Pro- 
gram," to Marin County, are useful and effective "temporary stop 
gaps," but are not great value when promised on a permanent basis. 
First, the contracting parties, whether it be two counties or cities 
within a county, can, at any time, terminate their agreement. In addi- 

^ Detention and Treatment Program For Adiilt Prisoners (Analysis and Recommenda- 
tions for County of Tulare, Marcli 1958), p. 5. 


tion, there may be legal limitations imposed such as those incorporated 
in the ^Marin-Sonoma agreement, dated March 15, 1960, para. F., p. 2, 
on the handling of inmates, types and number. Also, these contracts 
generally stipulate that the host county may, if conditions Avarrant, 
refuse to accept inmates on contract sliould local needs and demands 
overtax their facilities. So that the liost county's inmates are given a 
first preference. This factor becomes important in view of the constant 
increase reflected in prison population. 

There is also the problem of transportation and cost — transporting 
the inmates to the host jail, returning them to the city or county for 
trial or hearings and the like. This can become quite expensive and 

Our observations of course are not to be taken as a blanket condemna- 
tion of these arrangements. They have merit. Our purpose here is 
merely to point out some of the inherent deficiencies of this system and 
to underscore their usefulness in the limited circumstance of a tem- 
porary arrangement. 

Man}'- counties could, on an intercounty and intracounty basis, where 
cities within a county enter agreement with the county, utilize this 
approacli with much success pending improvement and expansion of 
detention facilities in their own localities. And for this limited pur- 
pose, we commend these arrangements and recommend their emulation 
where practical and possible. 

One of the problems, however, in addition to those relating to the 
functional aspects of such arrangements discussed above, is tliat of 
reaching agreement pertaining to an equitable charge to be made for 
the rendition of this detentional service by the host county. Of course 
the most preferable method for dealing with this problem is voluntary 
agreement between the contracting parties. And as a first step this 
committee strongly recommends this approach. 

However, in case of nonagreement, there should be some method or 
procedure whereby the negotiating parties can proceed to agreement 
in the matter of what charges are to be made. This subcommittee, there- 
fore, recommends that, in the matter of inter or intracounty boarding 
of offenders, the State Department of Corrections be authorized to con- 
duct cost analysis at the recpiest of the interested counties and submit 
its findings and recommendations to the parties. These recommendations 
should not be binding on the parties, but merely advisory. And thus 
with this mediative function lodged in a third neutral party who, based 
on objective data, makes a study of the costs involved and recommends 
a charge supported by this data, such a service could well pave the way 
for agreement and, it is perceived, even promote arrangements of this 
kind. ]\Iore important, such arrangements may well pave the way to 
implementation of joint county jails and farms as ]n"o.sently authorized 
by law. 


Serapio R. Zalba, Jr., supervisor, San Mateo County Program Xorth- 
crn California Service League, San Francisco, submitted the following 
statement to the subcommittee : 

The Northern California Service League lias long been concerned 
about rehabilitation treatment programs, or the lack of them, on the 


county jail level. Citizen groups privately, and through their local gov- 
ernments have also, from time to time, been concerned about this prob- 
lem area. In San Mateo County the result of such interest was a study 
committee which, after consideration of the problem, recommended that 
the county enter into a contractual agreement with the league, where- 
by tlie league would provide rehabilitation services for the county jail 
inmates and their families, both during the period of incarceration, 
and afterwards. This was done and our San Mateo County program 
began in 1957. When the program was first put into operation, we 
hoped that the United Fund would admit the league as a participating 
agency, and take over the financial support of its San Mateo program, 
as is the case in San Francisco for the league, and most other private 
casework agencies. This has not been possible, so the league's activities, 
which were expanded in 1958 to include the function of county parole 
officer, are still being financed by the San Mateo county government. 

The NCSL's rehabilitation program in San Mateo County is an at- 
tempt to meet a variety of problems with a variety of services. Fore- 
most of these problems is the essentially asocial orientation that most 
jail inmates seem to have. The laws and rules of conduct that apply 
to society in general, our clients tend to reject. Because they can show 
where other people are less than perfect, they seem to feel that they 
have the right to do what they know is considered wrong by others. 
They feel that other people don 't really care about them, so why should 
they care about others. And, when they get caught and are put in jail, 
they tend to feel that they were unfairly convicted, or that the judge 
was too severe in the sentence he imposed. 

We are using group counselling methods to deal with this problem 
area. In our two weekly counselling groups (a voluntary one at the 
jail, and a compulsory one at the jail farm) the inmates are encour- 
aged by the professionally trained rehabilitation worker, and by their 
fellow inmates, to think of incarceration and criminal activity as symp- 
toms of their own personal problems within the group, rather than on 
the problems of environment outside the group. For example: the sub- 
ject matter in group discussions gradually shifts from complaints about 
law enforcement, jail food, correctional personnel (society-in-general) 
to tentative explorations of how the inmates in the group tend to use 
their criminal activity to meet psychological needs ("I couldn't admit 
to myself, or to my wife, that I wasn't making enough money to meet 
our bills, so I wrote some checks until things got better at work"). 
Inmates often continue the discussions in their cells after the group 
meetings are over, so the process of self-examination that begins in a 
group meeting does not stop there. 

Another problem area we try to deal with is that of " dissocializa- 
tion." A person who has spent a period of time in jail has had to adjust 
to an environment different from that on the outside. The opposite 
process has to take place when a person is released from jail. He has to 
"readjust" to the outside world. He may have no clothes, no funds, no 
job, no family, or person he can turn to; or he may feel that he's com- 
pletely out of contact with the outside world, that his friends will shun 
him and his family resent him. 

To meet these situations we offer postrelease planning and casework 
services to the inmates and their families. In some cases we give tem- 


porary financial assistance. In others we refer clients to other agencies 
that can give the specific help that is rcqnired. We may help a client 
look for work, or lionsiiig, or help him retnrn to his family, at a time 
when his anxiety is high, and his self-confidence is low. 

Clients who voluntarily seek help from a private casework agency 
usually feel freer to talk ahout personal matters, including their crimi- 
nal activity, than do the clients of a public agency. On the other hand, 
a position which carries public authority provides an opportunity for 
using a different concept in the treatment of offenders. That concept 
is that the use of invested authority in an appropriate, nonpunitive, 
though limit-setting way, by a person who takes an interest in the 
client over whom he has authority, can be the means by which a client 
comes to see that authority is not inherently arbitrary, that authority 
relationships are bound to exist and so they must be faced and dealt 
with in one way or another. This is our treatment rationale in perform- 
ing tlie function of County Parole Officer of San Mateo County. AVe 
interview the parole applicants, make investigations, present written 
and oral reports to the Parole Board, then help the applicants with 
either accepting the fact that parole was denied, or planning for their 
period of parole if it was granted, then supervising them while they 
are on parole. There is a real advantage in our having had contact 
with parolees while they were in jail ; relationsliips Avhich are estab- 
lished in the jail tend to help the parolees perceive the Parole Officer 
as a possible source of help on the outside, rather than as someone who 
will try to catch them doing something wrong. 

There is a possibility that the function of supervising county ])arolees 
in San Mateo County may be transferred soon to the Adult Probation 
Department. County parole has proved itself feasible and practical 
from the security, as well as the rehabilitative, and economic points of 
view. The league's demonstration function in this area has thus been 
carried out. 

It must now turn its attention to other areas where services seem 
necessary and lacking. One such area is woi-k with untried prisoners. At 
present there is no social service intake process whereby those arrested 
are interviewed for the purpose of determining which arrests are the 
result of situations that could be resolved without court action. An ex- 
ample of til is would be the arrest of a husband as a result of a family 
fight. Often the situation calls for family counselling, rather than a 
jail term, and often the wife has changed her mind the next day, and 
wants her husband back home. 

In addition, arrestees often have cars left parked on the streets, 
clothes in hotels, and paychecks due them, and they are unable to make 
appropriate arrangements Avithout someone's help. In these situations 
early arrangements often avoid hopelessly complicated situations later 

As the NCSL representative in San JNIateo County, I sit on the Farm 
Classification Committee which meets weekly to decide which inmates 
can be safely assigned to work at the jail farm, which is a minimum 
security installation. At the present time approximately 15 to 20 men 
go out daily to the jail fai-m at the Half ^loon Ray Airport. When the 
new jail farm site and buildings are established, many more inmates 
will be transferred from the main jail which is essentially a maximum 
security institution. 


San Mateo County's "hope for the future," as far as a jail rehabili- 
tation program is concerned, lies in its proposed New Jail Farm. If a 
jail farm is conceived of as a treatment facility for misdemeanants, 
where frank discussions of personal feelings are encouraged and ac- 
cepted by all personnel, where personal problems are taken seriously, 
where some hope is offered that an inmate can change his pattern of 
delin(iuent behavior, and where skilled help is offered to those who 
seem to want to try, then it can truly be an institution where 
rehabilitation can take place. 

There are proposals by responsible persons in our county government 
that the New Jail Farm be conceived of and operated on such a basis. 
They propose that in addition to a treatment program patterned on the 
"Therapeutic Community" concept as outlined above, a work furlough 
program be added in which certain inmates could leave the jail during 
their W'Orking hours to Avork at their regular jobs in the community. 
In addition to the rehabilitative advantages this offers to the inmates, 
who can keep their regular jobs and continue to exercise some of their 
responsibilities, it lessens the tax burden on the community because the 
inmate continues to provide for his own maintenance, and that of his 




Mr. Joseph R. Silver, executive director. Northern California Service 

League, describes the above programs in addition to commenting upon 

his across-country trip visiting local jails. 

"It has become increasingly apparent to me, through contacts 
with correctional personnel across the country and in the course of 
a 10,000-mile trip that I conducted in the summer of 1960 in which 
I contacted correctional personnel and jail programs, that there is 
a growing ground swell of interest in providing training and treat- 
ment programs in city and county jails. 

"A word should be said about what is meant by training and 
treatment at the jail level. The jail is full of people who are beset 
by problems — problems of social adjustment and problems of per- 
sonal, psychological adjustment. For example, some people man- 
age adequately after finding a job: their problem of adjustment 
is relatively simple. The cause of their getting into jail is situa- 
tional. Others have deep-seated problems that lie behind their 
inability to hold a job once one is found. These people have gone 
to jail because of basic psychological problems that cannot be 
solved by the mere finding of a job. As a matter of fact, it is 
more often than not found that the external problems of handling 
money, environment, etc., stem from these inner or psychological 
problems. Therefore, to help a person only with his material, con- 
crete problem is to treat only the symptom. It is a little like 
concentrating on the spokes of a revolving wheel rather than the 

"Treatment therefore must be based on a recognition of the 
existence of psychological and personality problems among jail 
inmates; the acknowledgment that without help in solving them 


there will continue to be a high rate of recidivism ; the acceptance 
of responsibility by the community, for giving help in solving 
their problems, either through tlie jail administration or through 
private resources in the community. 

"This help must be provided, in addition to the other elements 
of a proper atmosphere or environment tliat I have already men- 
tioned, in the forms of counseling, casework, and therapeutic serv- 
ices that can be given only by people of training and skill. Since 
this is more than a mechanical manipulation of factors easy to 
control, it requires insight on the part of the worker — understand- 
ing of his own motivation, blocks, prejudices; understanding and 
acceptance of his own problems; and mature organization of his 
own personality before he can help others to the maximum. It also 
recjuires an appreciation of what the possibilities are of helping 
another person discover and marshall his own inner resources, and 
the mastering of the skills used in helping another person to do 

"To illustrate what I mean by a treatment program, and by the 
fact that there is a ground swell of interest in this type of program, 
four or five specific instances can be mentioned. 

' ' First : The San Diego Honor Camps, under the administration 
of The San Diego County of Honor Camps. This program is ad- 
ministered separately from the Sheriff's Department of San Diego. 

"The program consists of five camps located in the hills sur- 
rounding San Diego, California. They have a total population of 
a little over 300 inmates. They are minimum security, and receive 
prisoners through a classification committee consisting of repre- 
sentatives of the Sherifl's Department and the Honor Camp ad- 
ministration. The program includes the elements alluded to earlier 
as requisites of a good jail program — minimum security', outdoor 
environment, attention to good diet, medical care, full work and 
occupation for all able-bodied inmates, a limited occupational train- 
ing, planned recreational and leisure-time program. All inmates 
are paid a small daily wage, the amount varying with the tj'pe of 
work done. 

"In its statement of philosophy of tlie program it is said that 
the basic concept upon Avhich the program will be built is democ- 
racy, and that each inmate is to be considered as an individual 
needing different degrees of treatment and supervision. In the 
three week classification period after reception each inmate receives 
a battery of psychological tests, participates in group therapy and 
is involved in individual non-directive interviews. 

"All of these factors make for good morale among both staff 
and inmates and in tliemselves would make for a superior jail. 
But, perhaps, its most unique aspect is a therapeutic, community- 
type living group, which is being conducted at the Montezuma 
Camp. In this camp, the staff and imnates live in one barrack, 
eating and .sleeping togetlier and functioning as a unified living 
grouj). TIk' total group of 20 inmates is divided into smaller groups 
of 5 or 6 who meet three nights a week, with a member of the staff, 
in a group therapy session in which many things involving the 
individual adjustment of the inmates are discussed. Each member 


of this group makes a written, signed evaluation of each other 
member of the group once a month. These evaluations are read 
within the group and discussed, making for a great deal of serious 
discussion of the inmates' problems in Avhich they are unable to 
evade the facts due to the pressures from the peer group. In addi- 
tion to these small groups, the whole camp group, with the staff, 
meets one night a week for the discussion of common problems 
which, again, is apt to include many problems of personal relation- 
ships and adjustments. Because the staff lives so intimately with 
the inmates, the relationship between staff and inmates becomes 
one of a therapeutic nature. It is not at all uncommon for an in- 
mate to awaken a staff member in the middle of the night to talk 
over some problem which is keeping him awake. 

"This program is an adaptation to the short-term misdemeanant 
institution of Dr. Maxwell Jones' Therapeutic Community, which 
involves doctors, staff and patients, all of whom live together with 
special attention given to the therapeutic aspects of their com-